Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKERin the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT) PIER BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Union Ballots

Mr. Butcher: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to meet the president of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers to discuss the provision of money for ballots of its membership.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): I have no plans for such a meeting, although I am always ready to meet trade union leaders.

Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that this is one aspect of public expenditure available to trade unions that would assist them in providing a better and more informed service for their members?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I hope very much that trade unions and their leaders will do all that they can to encourage the holding of secret ballots, if necessary by post, recognising that the Government will pay the cost of those ballots while not wishing to interfere in the manner in which trade unions organise their affairs.

Mr. Joseph Dean: The Secretary of State must be aware that this proposal was put to the national committee of the AUEW, representing the rank and file in the industry, by the union's executive. The national committee took a democratic decision and rejected the proposal out of hand. Is this not an example of democracy working?

Mr. Prior: I am also aware that many members of the executive, including the leadership, were keen to take part in the scheme. I regret that they did not do so. I am, however, prepared to accept the view that was taken and I make no further comment about it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend not think that it would have been better if the Civil Service unions had taken advantage of the ballot procedure? Since more than half of the members of the Civil Service are not in favour of striking, the dispute might then have been settled a long time ago.

Mr. Prior: There is a great deal to be said for secret ballots. That is why the Government introduced the

measure and why it received a good deal of support from Opposition Members. I should like to see it used far more than at present.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State concede that the AUEW elects all its officers by secret ballot and does not require Government money for this purpose? Is not the real reason why the AUEW, along with other unions, will not accept money from this Government the fact that they are an anti-trade union Government?

Mr. Prior: I do not accept the latter point. Last year, ballots cost the AUEW about £293,000. I should have thought that the union would wish to take part in the scheme. If it prefers to spend its own money, who I am to complain?

Legally Enforceable Agreements

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the encouragement of legally enforceable agreements in industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): Legally enforceable agreements are one of the issues discussed in our Green Paper on trade union immunities. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the general secretary of the TUC, but we are, of course, ready to meet him at any time to discuss this or any of the issues discussed in the Green Paper.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Will my hon. and learned Friend not agree that while trade union leadership is always ready to criticise management for failing to consult, it is often reluctant to accept its responsibilities for ensuring that freely negotiated agreements are fully observed?

Mr. Waddington: This is perhaps not the most appropriate moment to apportion blame. All hon. Members, I believe, will agree that great benefits would accrue to management and employees if collective agreements were enforceable. Management would be able to plan with some knowledge of wage costs over a long period and employees would benefit from the increased productivity that would result.

Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister not accept that this provision was contained in the Industrial Relations Act 1971 of a previous Conservative Government? The only effect was that trade unions stated on the bottom of every piece of headed notepaper "This communication is not legally enforceable." In other words, this simplistic idea is completely impracticable.

Mr. Waddington: Under the 1971 Act, it was stated that there was a presumption that a collective agreement would be enforceable unless the contrary was stated. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that few were prepared to accept legal enforceability. That does not mean that we should not now bend all our efforts towards persuading people to accept legal enforceability or that we should not investigate various methods by which this can be brought about.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the most important type of agreement that we need to negotiate is the no-strike


agreement, both in the public and the private sector? Will his Department open discussions with the TUC to explore formulae to incorporate no-strike agreements?

Mr. Waddington: That matter clearly goes beyond this question, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of its importance. Again, it is one of the many matters touched upon in the Green Paper.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that measures of this kind have been tried and talked about for a long time in this country but that they are doomed to failure from the start because the right to withdraw labour is the prerogative of a free man and distinguishes him from the serf?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I said. I said nothing that could have conveyed the impression that I wished to deny the right to withdraw one's labour. I was careful to point out that we should encourage people to accept responsibility for their own actions and agree on legal enforceability.

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that what we really need, whether legally enforceable or not, is a readiness on the part of both employers and workers to accept and abide by collective agreements honourably entered into? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if the Government as employers had done that with the Civil Service, instead of unilaterally breaching their agreement, there would be no dispute with the Civil Service?

Mr. Waddington: Of course, the Civil Service agreements are collective agreements within the meaning of the 1974 Act and are therefore not enforceable. Perhaps the trade unions concerned will draw one or two lessons from that. On the merits of the matter, notice was given by the Government in August 1980 that cash limits would be the main determinant of the Civil Service settlement this year, and formal action to suspend the pay agreement was taken in October.

Trade Union Immunities

Mr. Bob Dunn: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if the responses he has so far received following the publication of the Green Paper on trade union immunities indicate that the set period of consultation is adequate; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has now received in reply to the Green Paper on trade union immunities.

Mr. Prior: So far we have received representations on the Green Paper from over 80 organisations and individuals. The consultative period ends on 30 June, and we are still awaiting comments from many of the major organisations in industry. I am satisfied that the period of nearly six months set aside for consultations is adequate and that most of those who wish to comment will be able to do so in the time allowed.

Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to do two things? First, will he reassure the House that the period of consultation is genuine? Secondly, before reaching a decision about the advisability of further legislation, will he take into account the strong feeling that undoubtedly exists about the closed shop?

Mr. Prior: The answer to both my hon. Friend's questions is "Yes, Sir". I am particularly aware of the second matter.

Mr. Renton: To what extent have the representations already received covered the apparent misuse of trade union funds, notably political funds used to buy swollen numbers of votes at Labour Party conferences, and general funds used to finance the building of the new Labour Party headquarters? Does my right hon. Friend believe that ordinary trade unionists would benefit from a more open, public and quick audit of trade union accounts?

Mr. Prior: These matters are not strictly relevant to the subject of the Green Paper. They are more relevant to the activities of the certification officer, as set out in the 1974 Act introduced by the Labour Government. I suggest that individual trade unionists should make certain that the funds of their trade unions are used for the proper purpose, and act accordingly.

Mr. Dixon: Does the right Gentleman realise that last year, although 29 million days were lost through strike action, 674 million days were lost through unemployment? Is it not time that he started doing the job for which he is paid, and created employment instead of trying to curb the unions?

Mr. Prior: There is no question of trying to blame working people alone for the problems facing the Government and the country. We all have to fight together for higher and better employment. Better industrial relations could do more to improve the position of this country than almost any other single factor.

Mr. Madel: As some major organisations are involved in intensive discussions with trade unions on manning levels and training, may not more time be necessary for consultation to get the right result in the end?

Mr. Prior: It is vital to get the right result in the end, and that is why we published a consultative Green Paper. From that will come valuable suggestions which will either be taken up in the form of legislation, or will need further work.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State consider the question of the legally enforced immunity of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who ordered dining rooms A and C for the semi-National Front Democratic Association yesterday in the House, and then had his name blanked out on the circular? Will the right hon. Gentleman examine that, too?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman's question is about as relevant as most of his questions.

Mr. Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman leave it till after Question Time?

Mr. Renton: It is relevant, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Very well.

Mr. Renton: Thank you, Sir. May I raise on a point or order the fact that obviously the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not know and has not sought to know that I did not book any dining rooms in the House of Commons yesterday, and that, when to sponsor——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that makes the position clear.

Job Release Scheme

Mr. Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest total number of those taking advantage of the job release scheme.

Mr. Waddington: At 28 April 1981, 58,251 people in Great Britain were in receipt of allowances under the job release scheme.

Mr. Stoddart: Is not that a ludicrously low number? If the scheme were altered to bring the qualifying age for men down to 60 and for women to 55, would it not cost only £165 million in 1982–83? Would it not be better if the Secretary of State, instead of wringing his hands to the people's march for jobs, like some latter-day Chamberlain, got down to doing something real about unemployment, and amended the job release scheme in the way suggested?

Mr. Waddington: There has been a massive increase in the youth opportunities programme this year, which has made it impossible to extend job release in 1981–82. I do not deny that this is a good scheme. One would like it to be extended. However, there would be a substantial net cost, and I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's figures. The existing scheme costs £130 million gross and £75 million net. The hon. Gentleman is referring to 1981–82, but not to the first full year. In the year 1982–83, the gross cost would be £600 million and the net cost £300 million. It is a question of resources.

Mr. John Grant: rose——

Mr. Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that the Minister should alter figures that were given to me in a written answer on Friday 8 May——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We usually leave points of order until after Question Time. Ministers, like other hon. Members, always seem to find the appropriate figures.

Mr. Grant: Will not Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State before he is reshuffled, have another look at this scheme with a view—at the very least—to restoring the cuts that have been made in it, bearing in mind the fact that, despite the figures given, it is extremely cost-effective and could do much to relieve unemployment? Would that not be better than waiting for the figure of 3 million unemployed to rise, as the Secretary of State has now confirmed is likely?

Mr. Waddington: First, I was in error. In fairness to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), I must point out that the first full year would be 1983–84. My figures are correct for that, but not for the year 1982–83. The figures then would be £600 million and £300 million. So the point I made is still a good one. [Laughter] I can only repeat that the Government agree that the scheme is a good one. There would be many advantages in extending it. However, it is another example of having to choose priorities. In view of the availability of resources it is not possible to grant the extension asked for by the hon. Member in this year.

Unemployment (Northern Region)

Mr. Foster: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects unemployment in the Northern region to fall.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): A substantial fall in unemployment in the Northern region, as elsewhere in the country, depends largely upon an upturn in world trade. The Government's policies are aimed at creating the economic conditions in which firms can take advantage of such an upturn and create the new jobs which are so much needed.

Mr. Foster: Is the Minister aware that 200,000 people in the Northern region are unemployed and that they are outraged at the Secretary of State disclaiming responsibility for unemployment? Is he further aware that nowhere in the developed world has unemployment increased so steeply? Does he accept that, if the Government were to invest now in British Rail, British Telecom and British Gas, not only would there be a negligible effect on the inflation rate but jobs would be created directly in Shildon and Newton Aycliffe in my constituency?

Mr. Morrison: I have visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the North-East twice in the last two months. My right hon. Friend and I are more than aware of the difficult position in the North-East. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, thanks to the Government's programmes, 21,861 people are benefiting from the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. Without that scheme they would be redundant.

Sir William Elliott: Is my hon. Friend aware that, because of Government policies, last year three times as many factories were opened in the Northern region's trading estates as were closed? Does he accept that, if Opposition Members looked at hard facts, they would discover, as I have, that as many jobs were created on the trading estates in the last 12 months as were lost? Is he aware that in addition many new inquiries have been made? Surely we need a bit of optimism, not pessimism.

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. The attitude which I have discovered in the North-East is optimistic. I have discovered optimism amongst those who want to go out, make something and create jobs. Optimism is there. I am sure that Opposition Members do not want to rock their supporters. As my hon. Friend says, jobs come not out of mid-air but from new orders. Many new orders are going to firms in the North-East.

Mr. David Watkins: Is the Minister aware that at least one firm in the Consett area of the North-East is refusing to employ anyone except ex-BSC workers because it does not receive extra subsidies for employing workers who are not former steel workers? How can such discrimination be justified, especially since in my constituency, which is heavily hit by steel closures, only half of the total unemployed are ex-BSC workers? How can that discrimination be justified? Will the Minister investigate?

Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of the firm to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he gets in touch with me I shall examine the position.

Closed Shop (Compensation)

Mr. John Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied that employees dismissed under closed shop agreements are adequately compensated under the Employment Act 1980.

Mr. Prior: As yet there have been no reported industrial tribunal decisions on cases of unfair dismissal arising under the Employment Act's closed shop provisions. We are keeping the operation of the Act under close review and we shall not hesitate to make further changes in the law, if they are shown to be necessary.

Mr. Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong feeling in the country that simply to increase industrial compensation is far from satisfactory and that the only real answer is reinstatement of employment?

Mr. Prior: I am aware of the strong feelings, particularly about the actions of Sandwell and Walsall council, and the people dismissed under such circumstances. An industrial tribunal has the right to demand reinstatement. However, it has never been part of our tradition or law that employers should be forced to take back people whom they do not wish to employ. That is why there is a third part to industrial tribunal compensation which allows additional compensation in such cases.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State comment about the many hundreds of workers who every year lose their jobs because of their trade union activities? Will he legislate along those lines?

Mr. Prior: Such people can also go to industrial tribunals.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that it is possible to sustain the proposition that the outlawing of the closed shop would serve no purpose and at the same time feel that the way in which Labour-controlled local authorities are using tenders as a means of forcing the extension of the closed shop without any regard to the views of those involved and affected is something with which the Government must deal?

Mr. Prior: I agree that there is abuse. It is covered by the discussions on the Green Paper. It might also—I cannot go further than this—be a breach of the Competition Act. It is a matter that has to be dealt with.

Mr. Skinner: Have not the Minister and the Government a cheek to talk about a few people who have been dismissed under closed shop agreements when in the last 12 months the Government have sacked 1 million workers through their economic policies? Is he aware that that has resulted in more than 2½ million people being out of work and the massive people's march which took place in the last month? Why is the Secretary of State not encouraging the Prime Minister to hold an industrial tribunal for the sacked Navy Minister?

Mr. Prior: Most hon. Members think that the sacking, at a time of high unemployment, of tea ladies and dinner ladies and people dismissed under such circumstances as those prevailing at Sandwell and Walsall, simply because they refused to join a trade union, is utterly wrong and should be condemned.

Laurence Scott Electromotors Ltd.

Mr. Eastham: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department will take steps to assist workers who lose their jobs as a result of the proposed plant closure of Laurence Scott Electromotors Ltd., Openshaw, Manchester.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The employment and training services of the Manpower Services Commission will be available to those who wish to take advantage of them. The Commission will make every effort within the limit of its resources to assist those affected to find alternative opportunities for work or training.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware of the shabby treatment being doled out by the company which recently took over Laurence Scott? Is he aware that only months ago that firm announced that the jobs of 650 workers would be protected? Is he further aware that the factory has been established for 100 years? Does he accept that we are now witnessing the classic case of a firm being smashed to the wall by asset-stripping? Is the Minister prepared to conduct an immediate inquiry since unemployment in Manchester is running at 15·5 per cent?

Mr. Morrison: I am not prepared to conduct an inquiry. It is not Government policy to intervene in such matters.

Mr. Charles Morris: Will the Minister confirm the statement made to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and to Paul Foot of theDaily Mirror that the directors of the company made the decision to close the plant on 10 February without any consultation with the trade unions or the work force? Does the Minister accept that such appalling behaviour is contrary to the code of practice in the Employment Protection Act?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I shall not confirm that. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. I remind him that payments are made to the employees, not to the employers. My Department has written to the company about this matter.

Mr. Marks: Is the Minister aware that employees who have been with the firm for less than 12 years will lose not only their jobs but their redundancy money? Since many are parents of young children and under great stress, will the Minister undertake to examine that aspect?

Mr. Morrison: If there is anything that we can do under existing legislation we shall consider the matter further. The hon. Gentleman is bringing to my attention a matter of which I was unaware.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of registered unemployed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure available for the number of people unemployed; what percentage this represents of the working population; and if he will give an age and sex breakdown of this figure in theOfficial Report.

Mr. Prior: At 14 May, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 2,558,405, which represents an unemployment rate of 10·6 per cent.
I shall ensure that the latest age and sex breakdown of the unemployment figure is printed in theOfficial Report.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not clear that the month-by-month increase in the registered unemployed and the devastation caused to such industrial areas as the West Midlands mean that the total number of registered jobless could rise to 3 million in the near future? Is the Secretary of State aware that the enthusiastic reception given to those who marched from Liverpool to London in protest against unemployment shows only too clearly that the British public will, at the first opportunity, reject a Government who have brought back to Britain mass unemployment, with all the humiliation and misery associated with such large-scale joblessness?

Mr. Prior: We had better wait for a general election before accepting the hon. Gentleman's prophecy. Unemployment did not start in 1979. If there were some simple answer to the problem of unemployment, presumably the Labour Government would have found it. Britain is facing problems that the remainder of the world is also facing. Yet for the past 20 years we have failed to face up to them.

Mr. Roberts: Does not the Secretary of State accept that, because of our oil resources, Britain is in a different position from other industrialised countries? Does not every analysis show that the 1·3 million that the Government have added to the dole queue are mainly the result of the Government's policies? Does not he accept that unless the Government decide soon to devote much of the financial resources gained from oil to regenerate industry, not only will there be unemployment of 3 million, but 3½ million in the near future?

Mr. Prior: I do not believe that the availability of oil in any way places Britain in a better employment position than it would otherwise be. We must export more goods. Through better production we must prevent the importation of more manufactured goods. Those factors show how uncompetitive Britain has become during the past 20 years and the need to tighten up considerably in industry if we are to compete. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the problems have been coming to Britain for a long time. The position has become worse during the past 20 years. That is one reason why our recession is deeper than that of a number of other countries.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if we are to achieve the increased employment that we all desire it will be sensible for the Opposition Front and Back Benches to agree to lower the general rate of pay increases, which would be better than continuing even at 7 per cent: next year?

Mr. Prior: As we all know, pay is an important part of trying to keep down our costs and improve our competitive position. The Labour Government found that as much as this Government are finding that. If some people pay themselves more it will create unemployment in other places. That is the inevitable and regrettable consequence.

Mr. Bagier: Was the Secretary of State serious when he said that oil did not affect the position? Is he saying that

without oil we would be better off? Does not he agree that he should use Government resources to ensure that industries such as the foundry and glass industries, and many others, do not continue to pay far more for their energy than their competitors pay in Europe? Is not that one aspect in which the Government could intervene, and should not they do so now?

Mr. Prior: Without oil we would be in an even worse position. There is no doubt about that. I do not think that Opposition Members can take any credit from that position. Energy costs are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. Evidence shows that our oil prices have been reasonably competitive with the remainder of Europe.

Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that unemployment will fall only if British industry and commerce provide the goods and services that the British public want to buy? It is regrettable that at present they often prefer foreign goods.

Mr. Prior: All too often the British public prefer to buy other people's goods rather than those which they produce themselves. Why on earth they should expect other people to buy their goods when they are not prepared to buy them themselves is a mystery to me.

Mr. Varley: As unemployment has reached a catastrophic level and, tragically, will become even worse on the basis of present policies, will the Secretary of State assure the House that during the forthcoming full-scale Cabinet debate on economic policy—which was foreshadowed in today's newspapers—he will demand, as the Minister principally responsible, immediate measures not only to arrest and reverse that trend but to stop such a waste of human resources? Does he agree that the only way to get out of the current position is to ensure that the Governments can influence the level of employment and output? Public spending and public works must be at the heart of that.

Mr. Prior: There are many factors, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well, that influence the level of unmployment in Britain. One of the most important of those is the level of world trade. There is little that the Government can do about that. On the question of consultation with my colleagues, I am sure that he will find that the Cabinet is in full agreement about its policy:

Following is the information:

At 9 April, the latest date for which the quarterly age analysis is available, the number of people in the Unfired Kingdom unemployed by age and sex was as follows:


Age Group
Males
Females
All


Under 18
87,753
68,118
155,871


18–19
148,452
104,374
252,826


20–24
328,720
179,744
508,463


25–34
421,742
158,402
580,144


35–44
265,718
76,005
341,723


45–54
232,248
75,744
307,992


55–59
138,419
41,193
179,612


60 and over
196,705
1,877
198,582


All ages
1,819,757
705,457
2,525,214

Work Experience Programme

Mr. Neil Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average delay in reimbursing those firms participating in the work experience programme for their outlay of the standard remuneration.

Mr. Peter Morrison: In May 1981 the average delay in reimbursing firms participating in the youth opportunities programme was between three and four weeks. Steps are being taken to speed reimbursement of sponsoring firms.

Mr. Thorne: Because the period in some parts of the country can be as long as three months, is my hon. Friend prepared to consider some form of bankers order for the firms participating in such a scheme so that payments are not held up by a shortage of civil servants?

Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend will be aware, there has been a significant increase in the number of places in the youth opportunities programme. Last year the planned number was 250,000 and the outturn was 360,000. This year, it is 450,000. More staff have now been allocated and I hope that the position to which he referred will not occur again.

Mr. Foster: While the Minister is considering quicker reimbursement for companies for the work experience aspect of the youth opportunities programme, will he bear in mind that local education authorities are in exactly the same position?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Productivity

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when last he met the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss productivity.

Mr. Waddington: My right hon. Friend has not had a recent meeting with the president of the CBI to deal with this specific topic, but productivity is regularly discussed at meetings of the National Economic Development Council of which both the president of the CBI and my right hon. Friend are members.

Mr. Eggar: Does not my hon. and learned Friend accept that the recent increases in productivity in British Steel and British Leyland show that significant increases can be achieved in the public as well as the private sector? Is not an increase in productivity the only hope for sustained economic recovery?

Mr. Waddington: Yes, indeed. We can all take cheer from the fact that, even at this time of economic difficulties, there have been some most important developments in British Steel and British Leyland in the areas of restrictive practices and increased productivity.

Mr. Dormand: What would the Secretary of State say to the president of the CBI about DJB Engineering Limited in my constituency, which holds three recent export awards and is recognised as a major success story in the Northern region? Is he aware that that company has decided to expand in the United States, but that although it is selling all its products it is, nevertheless, experiencing considerable difficulties? Is he aware that that company has excellent management and a dedicated and cooperative work force? Will he consult not only the CBI but

his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to decide what can be done about that issue? Is not that a classic case of the utter failure of the Government's policies?

Mr. Waddington: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is doing a service by highlighting that company's difficulties. However, it is not easy to relate those difficulties to the question and he will not expect me to answer his supplementary question now. I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State for Industry.

European Community (Youth Service Scheme)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions have taken place in the European Council of Ministers on the proposals for a European youth service scheme.

Mr. Prior: None, Sir, although the European Parliament has shown its concern to encourage exchanges of young people. The Government fully support the Community's programme of young worker exchanges.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Has my right hon. Friend yet been able to give any thought to the form that such service should take? Does he see it as an extension of the young workers' exchange scheme or does he visualise an involvement in certain social projects within the Community?

Mr. Prior: I think that it is more likely to be an extension of the exchange scheme than anything else. There is not much money available for such a scheme at present. We have to consider our contribution and our returns from the Community much more in terms of what can be done for young people within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Barry Jones: What urgent action can the right hon. Gentleman take to halt the shortfall in apprenticeships and apprenticeship redundancies? Is not it likely that there will be an alarming collapse in provision from about 80,000 to 60,000 this year? Does he agree that only the dole waits for one in two school leavers this coming autumn?

Mr. Prior: That is rather a wider question. Yes, I am worried about the probable failure to take up apprenticeships this September. As the House will know, the Manpower Services Commission has put proposals to the Government and these are now being considered.

Youth Provision (Peterborough)

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the chairman of the Peterborough youth opportunities council to discuss provision under the Manpower Services Commission for youth in Peterborough.

Mr. Peter Morrison: As my hon. Friend knows, I shall, at his invitation, be speaking to the Peterborough youth opportunities council on the 18th of this month. I shall listen carefully to what it has to tell me.

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend will be welcome in Peterborough. When he is there, will he take the opportunity to get briefed on the Phoenix farm project under the youth opportunities programme, which is being


seriously hampered—income is being lost to the scheme—because of the bureaucratic procedures and inflexibility of the Manpower Services Commission?

Mr. Morrison: I know of the valuable contribution that the Phoenix training workshop farm has made to the YOP. I appreciate the problems that it has had. I have asked the Commission to consider the issue again and to be as flexible as possible in its approach to the problem.

European Community (Unemployment)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will discuss with his European counterparts the possibility of a special Council of Ministers meeting on unemployment in the Community.

Mr. Waddington: Unemployment was one of the major issues discussed at the meeting of the European Council in Maastricht on 23–24 March, and also at an informal meeting of Community Employment Ministers on 6–7 April. I expect the next meeting of the Council of Ministers, Labour and Social Affairs, to have an opportunity to consider a Commission paper on the problems of unemployment.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Bearing in mind the shocking total of 8 million unemployed in the Community, will he undertake to examine the possibility of joint stimulatory action in the member States to try to reduce unemployment as soon as possible?

Mr. Waddington: I have no doubt that this is one of the matters that will be discussed during coming meetings and especially when the Commission's paper is discussed.

Mr. John Grant: Did the British Government's representative acknowledge at the meeting of the Council of Ministers to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred that unemployment in Britain during the past 12 months has risen at a faster rate than in any country in the developed world? If so, will the Minister tell us why that has happened?

Mr. Waddington: I am sure that all those present discussed the problems that are being faced by their respective countries as a result of the world recession. I have no doubt that our Minister made it plain that for many years, largely because of our own folly, we have allowed ourselves to become less and less competitive.

Mr. Ashley: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that an important part of the Community's unemployment is in Stoke-on-Trent, where the rate has doubled during the past year? Am I now to tell those people that the Government's response to the charge of creating unemployment is that they are not guilty due to diminished responsibility?

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman knows that when the Government took office they inherited unemployment of 1½ million. He knows that the trend was a rising one. He knew that the deep-seated ills of the British economy would not be removed or cured in a short time.

European Community (Youth Unemployment)

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assistance has been forthcoming from

the European Community to help training opportunites for the young unemployed in the United Kingdom in each year since 1973.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Specific assistance for schemes of training, retraining and resettlement for young people under 25 years of age who are unemployed or seeking employment has been available under the European social fund since August 1975, rising from £2·2 million in that year to £71·9 million in 1980. The total assistance allocated from the fund in this period was £202·7 million.

Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain has been a substantial net beneficiary of the European social fund and that this fact is overlooked, as are so many, by those who seek to oppose the Community?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, I do. Last year Britain was allocated £71·9 million, which was 30 per cent. of the budget available, compared with our contribution of 21 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Needham: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 2 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Sultan of Brunei.

Mr. Needham: Has my right hon. Friend fad an opportunity today of reading theLondon Labour Briefing of yesterday, a leading light of which, I believe, is Mr. Kenneth Livingstone? The chairman of the Lambeth community affairs council said in it, about the Brixton riots, that the Metropolitan Police were an intimidatory army of occupation and that on some occasions insurrectionary methods were necessary. Does my right hon. Friend believe that such articles will do anything to help the relationship between the police and the immigrant communities?

The Prime Minister: I saw the publication to which my hon. Friend refers. Such language and attitudes are totally irresponsible and dangerous and are tantamount to encouraging anarchy. I hope that they will be rejected by most Labour Members. I am sure that they are repugnant to most people in Britain. Fortunately, responsibility for the Metropolitan Police lies with the Home Secretary and it will stay there.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady take the first opportunity on the House meeting after the recess to tell us what are her latest views about the so-called upturn in the economy, which she has sometimes prophesied? Will she tell us when she last made this prophecy and say how she squares the appalling unemployment figures published a few days ago and the figures about continuing falls in production with her own prophecies about an upturn? When is the upturn going to take place? When will the unemployment figures begin to fall?

The Prime Minister: I think that most of the recent forecasts agree about two things—first, that the level of inflation will continue to fall and, secondly, that the recession has just about reached bottom——

Mr. Skinner: Again?

The Prime Minister: I would have thought that Labour Members would find that encouraging. Of course, forecasts do not wholly agree about when the expansion will come for the simple reason that when the expansion comes depends on how far we take advantage of the opportunities that are available. Much depends on how far wage increases go hand in hand with productivity increases and, therefore, what proportion of orders we get on the home market and the export market.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady be more specific in translating her statement about the turn-round which is about to happen—I forget the exact term that she used—into some effect on the unemployment figures? Does she agree with the extraordinary statement made by the Secretary of State for Employment to the representatives of the People's March for Jobs, when the right hon. Gentleman tried to pretend that unemployment was nothing to do with him and his Government? How can she make that accord with the fact that unemployment has been going up more severely in this country than in any other industrial country?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman made such a point of comparing unemployment and jobs in this country with those in Europe, may I point out to him that in this country a higher proportion of the population are in jobs, in work, than in any other country in Europe save Denmark?

Mr. Freud: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 2 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Freud: Does the Prime Minister accept that her Government have done even less than previous Governments to publicise information about available DHSS benefits? Would she consider the comparative villainies between people trying to claim benefits to which they are not entitled which costs the country £40 million, and withholding sufficient information for people to claim benefits to which they are entitled, which saves the country £500 million

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise in any way. This Government are operating the benefits which are available to ordinary people in the same way as previous Governments. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will agree that if people wrongly claim benefits to which they are not entitled that reduces the amount of money available for people who are really in need.

Mr. Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if, during the last five years, the unions had not demanded, and employers had not conceded, increases in manufacturing earnings, which have doubled in five years while production has declined, many more people would be at work today? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if the Opposition's policies were carried out they would inexorably lead not only to rip-roaring inflation but to even greater unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. In this country over the last five years pay has doubled, whereas output has slightly fallen. That is totally different from the position with many of our competitors.

Pay in those countries has gone up hand in hand with productivity. Consequently, they have the jobs and we have a larger proportion of the unemployment.

Mr. Varley: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House at what period during the remainder of this Parliament unemployment will fall to the level that she inherited?

The Prime Minister: The future course of unemployment will depend upon the advantage which is taken of the opportunities available. A very important matter is the level of pay in relation to the level of output. The right hon. Gentleman may shake his head but it is because he tried to run away from the realities that the decline in industrial production was so sharp.

Sir, Charles Fletcher-Cooke: When my right hon. Friend, meets his Highness the Sultan of Brunei later today, will she give him an assurance about the future of the battalion of Gurkhas after final independence in 1983?

Mr. Skinner: That is a handy diversion.

The Prime Minister: That battalion is an excellent part of our defence forces. I shall, of course, discuss that matter with the Sultan.

Dr. Summerskill: During her day, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that when she last visited Halifax it was during the general election campaign to try to persuade people to vote Conservative? Will she now pay another visit and explain to the people of Halifax why, under her Government's policies, unemployment has risen by 175 per cent. and the whole manufacturing base of the town is being gradually eroded?

The Prime Minister: I have been trying to give an explanation to the House. One of the reasons is that in the past five years we have continually paid ourselves more for doing the same amount of work. If prices go up, the orders go elsewhere.

Mr. Dickens: Notwithstanding the way in which they were released, will the Prime Minister find time today, or on some subsequent day, to consider whether this country could give political asylum to a handful of former Pakistani Members of Parliament who are stranded in Damascus, Syria, seeking to come to this country?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As my hon. Friend must remember, many people have been waiting to come into this country for a long time.

Mr. Stoddart: Does the right hon. Lady recall describing the level of youth unemployment as tragic? Does she realise that she could do something about it by persuading her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that he should alter the job release scheme to bring down the age limit to 60 for men and 55 for women, since that is the most cost effective way of providing jobs for young people?

The Prime Minister: Anxious as I am, and anxious as the hon. Gentleman is, to reduce the level of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, that suggestion would not be at a low cost. It would be extremely expensive because of the amount of social security benefits which would have to be paid to those whose jobs are released, particularly if the age limit were brought down to 60 for men and 55 for women. Instead, my right hon. Friend is trying to work towards a scheme


under which young people will be in full-time education, in jobs or in training, so that unemployment is not an option.

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. Friend re-emphasise today that, much as we all deplore the appalling increase in the rate of unemployment, that is due, no more and no less, to self-inflicted wounds under successive Governments? Does she agree that the answer does not lie in throwing money at the problem for the simple reason that we do not have that money in the first place? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the only answer—and there is an increasing acknowledgment of this—lies in every working man making himself more productive and more competitive to help his unemployed colleagues?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The answer to unemployment lies in people giving good value either for products or services—such good value that the British housewife will buy those products or services in preference to foreign goods.

Mr. Maclennan: In at least four previous answers to questions on unemployment the Prime Minister has referred to the level of incomes. Does she believe that her hectoring on that subject is any substitute for a properly worked-out incomes policy?

The Prime Minister: It has been an incomes policy that has led to people demanding more pay regardless of extra productivity.

Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to commiserate with the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who lost the fight for the presidency of the SNP and also now leads a party which no longer believes in democratic Government but in civil disobedience?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can perhaps look after himself.

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 2 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Lady spend a little of today considering the problems of private tenants, in

London in particular, and long leaseholders, who are facing traumatic demands for an increase in rents and repairs of about 3½ or four times? Does she agree that the Secretary of State's housing policy is in total ruins and that it is time she replaced him and did something to help people to obtain a home at a reasonable rent or ac a reasonable price?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend's housing policy is excellent and is bringing the benefits of home ownership to many people who have never had that opportunity. It has also made houses available for those who wish to move from one area to another. With regard to people who have to suffer increased rents, as the hon. Gentleman knows, those who are the poorest and who cannot afford them can obtain rent rebates. The hon. Gentleman is fully aware of that.

Mr. Amery: Will my right hon. Friend find to consider the serious constitutional implications of depriving the individual Services of their political chief? Does she agree that, with the best will in the world, a Minister of State and his Under-Secretary will find it extremely difficult to be as accessible to middle rank officers in the way that previous Service Ministers were?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. A long time ago we changed from a three-Service Ministry to one Ministry of Defence. That reorganisation had not been completed. We and the Service chiefs are interested in a policy for the defence of the realm, and all the Services are involved.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Prime Minister said that the Secretary of State for the Environment had made houses available for people who wanted to move from one area to another. Does she recall that a constituent of mine took her advice and moved to Guildford to get a job? Does she recollect that he could not obtain a house, so I wrote to her, and her reply was to the effect that the fact that my constituent could not find a house in Guildford after taking her advice had nothing to do with her?

The Prime Minister: There would be something very wrong with Government if every Prime Minister took on the responsibility of getting a job for every person. It would be ridiculous to get a particular job in a particular way. The Secretary of State for the Environment introduced a scheme under which local authorities make a certain proportion of houses available for people who move from one area to another. That scheme is working and it is the first time that such a scheme has been introduced.

Local Authorities (Expenditure)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on current expenditure by local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be making a statement later today, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making a statement shortly.
My Department has now analysed the revised estimates of local authorities in England and Wales for the volume of their current expenditure in 1980–81 and the budget plans of English local authorities for 1981–82. In the light of this analysis, I have today put proposals to the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance.
Hon. Members will recall that when local authorities in England and Wales originally submitted their budgets for 1980–81 these suggested a planned excess in the volume of current expenditure by local government as a whole of some £740 million at November 1979 prices. This was 5·6 per cent. above the Government's public expenditure plans. As a consequence, in June last year I called for revised budgets, which led local authorities to reduce this planned excess to some £350 million at 1979 prices, or 2·6 per cent. above the Government's targets. In order further to reduce this remaining excess, the Government asked the House to approve the withholding of £200 million from the increase order for England and Wales made in January 1981 on the understanding that we would be prepared to restore all or part of that sum if the outturn figures for 1980–81 showed an acceptable reduction.
The analysis of the revised estimates for 1980–81 indicates that there will still be a volume excess, which the local authority associations estimate could range from £50 million to £250 million in England. Final figures for the outturn expenditure in 1980–81 are, however, not yet available. I shall have to wait, therefore, until more accurate outturn figures are available in the autumn before considering restoration of grant.
Budgets of local authorities in England for this year—1981–82—indicate a volume of current expenditure about £800 million or 5·3 per cent above the Government's target level at November 1980 prices. Local authorities have also made provision for higher pay and price increases than allowed for in the cash limits, and have thus budgeted for a cash excess of £1,250 million above the amount assumed for current expenditure in the RSG settlement. This is an inadequate response to the Government's request for lower public expenditure and protects the current consumption and staffing levels of local government at the expense of the ratepayers, whose ability to pay is already seriously diminished by the present recession.
The traditional relationship between central Government and local government rests on the clear understanding that local government keeps within the overall financial policies of the central Government. The Government believe that this understanding must be upheld.
I am, therefore, asking all local authorities to review their budgets for 1981–82 by the end of July to achieve levels of expenditure consistent with the Goverment's public expenditure plans. If the call for revised budgets does not produce a satisfatory response, I propose to ask

the House in the autumn to approve a reduction in the total amount of grant available this year. I cannot be certain until I know the results of the revised budgets what would be an appropriate figure, but, if the present spending plans remain unchanged, the Government consider that £450 million would be the appropriate amount to withhold in grant. Authorities which achieve the Government's volume targets will not suffer from this reduction in grant. I also intend that those close to their volume targets will be partially exempted.
I am placing in the Library detailed figures showing how this proposal would affect individual authorities. I shall be inviting detailed consultations about these proposals with local government.
I must emphasise that it lies entirely in the hands of local government to revise its plans so as to achieve the necessary reduction of public expenditure and thus to avoid loss of grant.
The House will want to know that over one-third of all local authorities—responsible for about 11 per cent. of local authority expenditure—have already budgeted within the Government's volume targets and thus will lose no grant from this reduction if they stick to their present plans. Over half of all local authorities—responsible for over one-third of local authority expenditure—would already be protected wholly or in part from holdback.
The Government have not only to consider the consequences of excessive expenditure but also the extent of the inequities in the way in which local revenue is raised through the rates. The Government, therefore, intend to issue a consultation document on the alternatives to domestic rates in the autumn. In the meantime, we are considering further measures, including legislation next Session, which are needed to bring home to individual local authorities and their electorates the consequences of high-spending policies.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State said that a similar statement would be made shortly by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Will that be today, and will it be an oral statement? Some of us are fed up with the Secretary of State for Scotland hiding behind parliamentary written questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order must be addressed to me and not to anyone else. I have not yet had notice whether the statement will be written or oral.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has announced is a witch-hunt against local government? The right hon. Gentleman had the audacity and effrontery to refer to the traditional relationship between central Government and local government but is he aware that his statement totally violates that relationship? Does he accept that he has admitted that two months after the end of the previous financial year he has only a vague idea, within the range of £200 million, of what he regards as excess expenditure for that year, yet he is proposing to victimise local authorities which he accuses of overspending on the basis of figures available only two months into the present financial year? Is he aware that not a single local authority is overspending? What local authorities are doing in upholding services for their electorate is declining to conform to arbitrary unilateral ceilings laid down, not by


Parliament, but by one overweening person—the Secretary of State for the Environment. Refusal to give way to a dictator is defence of democracy.
Is the Secretary of State aware that he deliberately withheld his statement until after the local elections because he would have had to admit that, under the statement, all but two of the Conservative councils up for re-election would have been subject to penalty? That still did not save 1,000 Conservative councillors. Is he aware that his expenditure ceilings are so unfair and unrealistic that 65 per cent. of local authorities have found it impossible to conform to them and that 60 per cent. of Conservative-controlled authorities providing miserable services even so have been unable to conform to his criteria? Is he aware that, having cut rate support grant by a scandalous 8½ per cent. in his announcement last December and proposing now to cut it by a further 5 per cent., this is a ruinous imposition on ratepayers?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement today is an attack not on councillors but on the voters whom he is fining £450 million for their effrontery in choosing policies that they prefer rather than policies that he dictates? The Secretary of State makes a mockery of local democracy and confirms his reputation as the commissar of local government.

Mr. Heseltine: I shall try to help the right hon. Member on his first point. He attacked me for having only vague estimates of the outturn for last year. The statement made clear that they were the local authorities' estimates and not mine. I have relied upon what the local authorities have told me. As they have not yet been able to make up their minds about their own expenditure levels, I have decided that we must wait until the autumn when more accurate figures are available.
I turn to the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's comments—I think that there was some substance beneath the invective—namely, the relationship between local government and central Government. I repeat what I said in my statement. It is the Government's view that the traditional position of central Government as being able to lay down the levels of public expenditure must be upheld. I remind Labour Members of the words with which the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) in 1976 removed grant from local Government without any consultation. He said:
Local authorities will know that the present economic situation makes it imperative that the Government's plans for public expenditure are not exceeded".
I further refresh the minds of Labour Members by referring to another Labour Secretary of State for the Environment, who preceded the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar, namely, the late Mr. Anthony Crosland. Having just come to the job of Secretary of State, he said:
An energetic council served by able and energetic officers will always have a thousand-and-one desirable projects on the shelf which it would like to set in motion. What the council will have to say quite simply is' no, we cannot afford them; the country cannot afford them.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) should remember that he was a junior Minister in the Department of the Environment when that statement was made. The statement was headlined under the classic words "The party is over". The problem was that the party had hardly begun.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the total revenue collected by all local authorities this year will be 18·2 per cent. more than last year? That figure surely gives the lie to the idea that he is trying to screw down local authorities' expenditure. Does he agree that the system is being abused simply because the rating system itself, which is the principal source of local government funds, is unfair, illogical and archaic? Does he therefore accept that we welcome the consultation paper as a first small step in replacing this iniquitous impost?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend refers to a very important and central point. It is relatively easy to get a mandate for higher levels of local expenditure when sometimes only a minority of the people concerned actually pay directly for the expenditure for which they vote. It is for that reason that the Conservative Party made its commitment in 1974 and we shall proceed with a consultative document in the autumn.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to let Members' questions run until 4.5 pm and then to move on to the second statement.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that the vast majority of local authorities have shown considerable responsibility in their budgeting, particularly over the past few years? Will he explain what is meant by the words "close to…volume targets" in his statement? We welcome the statement that there will be a discussion document on domestic rating, but we remember that in 1974 the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister was promising to do away with domestic rating. We welcome the document, but will it be flexible in its content?

Mr. Heseltine: It will be a consultative document. Few things are more flexible than that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a very large number of local authorities have been responsible. By and large, the record of local authorities in keeping to Government targets has also been extremely good. But the whole local government machine, largely since the end of the last war, has assumed that there is to be an ever-increasing level of expenditure. As a nation which does not now enjoy the economic resources to pay for such a concept, we have to reverse attitudes and practices which have become ingrained in many parts of the public sector.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I fully understand and support my right hon. Friend's desire to stop profligate local authorities from misusing and misspending ratepayers' money, but does he agree that many local authorities, particularly those which are Conservative controlled, have been doing their best for a considerable time to live up to the Government's guidance on expenditure? If he has to come back to Parliament in the autumn, will he take account of that? Is he aware that if he does not do that, and if he adopts a blanket approach to both good and bad authorities, not only will local government be to some extent emasculated, but he will reduce some of the few remaining checks and balances in the constitution?

Mr. Heseltine: I very much sympathise with my hon. Friend's last point. I value the concept of an environment of freedom for local government. But I must make the


point which was made time and again by Labour Members, that that can be based only upon the right of central Government to manage the national economy. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I have been able to give assurances of exemption from holdback to significant numbers of authorities which have already achieved our targets. Nearly half of local authorities now have the knowledge that even on their present levels of planning there will be exemption in whole or in part from the holdback now under discussion. I think that that meets my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State remember that last October, when he was on this sort of game, he put some local authorities into the penalty box through quite unnecessary wrong facts and information that the Department of the Environment could have got right through better consultation with local authorities? In particular, will he now look at the difficulty of partnership authorities, which are being told that partnership expenditure, which was intended to be additional to other expenditure, will be counted within the totals for the purpose of these penalties?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will know that the use of the transitional arrangements under the local government legislation is the subject of court proceedings. It would therefore be wrong for me to comment at this time.
With regard to the incidence of urban expenditure in the budgets of local authorities, I have said to the consultative council today that my announcement is my initial reaction to the budgets that have been sent in. I want to have detailed consultation about the points made by the hon. Gentleman and a whole range of other matters to see whether there is any way in which we can ease forward the process of achieving the Government's public expenditure targets.
If there are better ways of doing it, I am prepared to discuss that with local authorities and to raise the sort of issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I must secure the Government's public expenditure targets. I have offered local authorities the opportunity to put forward other ways of making progress in that direction, but so far they have made no positive response to that invitation.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the urgent need to introduce a rate reform Bill in the coming Session? Will he time his consultations so that the time span does not render it impossible to introduce that urgently needed Bill in the coming Session?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Two steps are involved. The first is a longer term step which involves reform of the domestic rating system. It would be unrealistic to suggest that a consultation document this autumn could lead to legislation in the next Session. However, I am aware of the urgency that my hon. Friend attaches to this matter. The Government intend to make progress as soon as practicable.
The second step that I referred to in my statement involves the possibility of a need for interim measures to

deal with some of the more difficult areas of pressure that could be created by the levels of expenditure that I have mentioned. That could be the subject of legislation this autumn.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If questions and answers were briefer, I could call more hon. Members.

Mr. Michael English: The right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on pointing out that local authorities for 1980–81 are likely to exceed the Government's targets by less than 2 per cent. and possibly by less than 1 per cent. Can the right hon. Gentleman give the same percentage figure for the amount by which central Government have exceeded their targets for that year? If it is in excess of the figure by which local authorities have exceeded their targets, will he resign?

Mr. Heseltine: I am not unsympathetic to the gist of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have often pointed out that local government's record in achieving its targets over a spread of years, has been extremely good——

Mr. Ted Graham: Better than central Government.

Mr. Heseltine: —and better than central Government. It is only now, when we are trying to reverse the assumption of upward direction, that we are running into such difficulties. Even now, one can see that local government is beginning to respond to the requests that central Government have made, but it is not doing so fast enough or on a sufficient scale. In the light of the general problems involved in reducing public expenditure, we should not in any way underestimate the scale of local government's response.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all responsible people will welcome the Government's announcement about the consultative paper on changes in the domestic rating system? What action is my right hon. Friend prepared to take against those county councils that are likely, because of the change of control, to issue a supplementary rate? Might that not be extremely damaging to industry in particular areas of the country? Is it not hypocritical of the Opposition to play on unemployment so much when their local authorities are likely to add to the number of unemployed because of supplementary rates?

Mr. Heseltine: That is one reason why I must go for a revision-of-budgets exercise in order to ensure that I have the most up-to-date information about local authorities' intentions. In my statement I have made it clear, in a general way, that the Government would not be prepared to stand back and to watch changes of the type that my hon. Friend referred to and would, if necessary, be prepared to legislate next Session. At this stage of consultation with local government and at this stage in the Government's analysis of the problems, I do not want to make specific threats. However, it must be understood that there is now a fundamental challenge to the assumptions about the relationship between central Government and local government.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Secretary of State accept that most beleaguered city authorities, such as Leicester, are doing their best to provide services for those who live in the city? Is he aware


that, essentially, his statement means that all sections of the community, particularly those most in need of the services, will get fewer services?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. and learned Gentleman implies that wealth and jobs can be created in cities only by local authorities and within the public sector. I do not accept that assumption. By charging rates that are higher than those that can reasonably be afforded local authorities are deterring and destroying private investment and job creation in the private sector.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Although my right hon. Friend is right to take steps to prevent certain local authorities from undermining Government control of public expenditure, does he accept that the answer must lie in the abolition of the rating system? We need not more consultative documents or reform of the domestic rating system, but its abolition.

Mr. Heseltine: To paraphrase my right hon. Friend's question, he is saying that we need a system to replace the present domestic rating system. That will be the subject of a consultation paper in the autumn. The House will appreciate that it is important to understand that, just because one changes the basis of raising money, one does not automatically affect the Government's ability to control the level of expenditure. Indeed, some of the alternatives to domestic rates might encourage increased expenditure.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, try as they may, some local authorities cannot control expenditure? I have in mind areas such as mine, where 25 per cent. of the population are immigrants. That means difficulties in housing, education, health and so on. Thousands of the immigrants' relatives are still coming in. What can a council do if relatives come into the country and make an overcrowded house even more overcrowded? A council has to find housing for such people. How can it do so if the amount of money it receives is continually cut?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is another side to the coin, namely, the need to ensure that there are job opportunities for many of those living in such areas. Over-high rate levels are bound to destroy job opportunities and to create another set of problems for local government or central Government. For the first time we have a method of measuring independently the relative needs of individual authorities through the grant mechanism. The factors that the hon. Gentleman mentioned can therefore be taken into account in the grant distribution process.

Mr. Peter Hordern: Although I completely accept my right hon. Friend's determination to control the volume of rate support grant, does he agree that there are some curious quirks in the way that the system works? Under the grant-related formula, West Sussex county council spends less than the national average but more than it was supposed to spend compared with 1978–79 simply because of the increase in population. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that such strange quirks are ironed out so that a proper system can be presented that is fair to every authority?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has mentioned a fundamental challenge that faces local government and myself. It is a question of how to move from the volume

targets which we had no choice but to set—based on the outturn for 1978–79, when we first came to office—towards a system that reflects the needs of individual authorities. In this afternoon's consultative council, I told local authorities that I wished to talk to them about such issues. I must achieve the Government's public expenditure targets, but I am happy to have detailed consultations about such problems. The base line of 1978–79, from which we requested the economies, reflected the highest level of current consumption and of manpower in the history of local government.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it not clear and inevitable that these cuts will lead to still more people on the dole? Instead of reducing the number of building workers, home-helps and dustmen, should not the right hon. Gentleman increase their numbers in order to relieve the tremendous well of suffering and, at the same time, to reduce unemployment?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is on a familiar theme. One consequence of the ever-increasing level of current consumption in local government is that the Government have had to look elsewhere for economies in order to pay for it. Under the last Labour Government the capital investment programme was £3 billion lower at the end compared with the first year.
It was cut by half, but the current expenditure was increased by 10 per cent. There is a direct trade-off. Anthony Crosland was honest about that when he said that the party was over. He said that he had to make exactly that sort of allocation of priorities in housing. That is the dilemma with which we are all faced. As long as the current consumption bills rise as they have done for 30 years, the capital bills will be cut to pay for them.

Mr. John Cartwright: Will the Secretary of State accept that some of us would give no more than a guarded welcome to the consultation document. We have seen many similar exercises over the years. Those of us who went through the Layfield operation know that it is much easier to demonstrate the deficiencies of the rating system than to find an acceptable and workable alternative.
Does the Secretary of State accept that where local authorities make good from supplementary rates the cuts in grant, the ratepayers will find themselves taking the unfortunate role of "piggy in the middle" in a tug-of-war? If the Secretary of State wants that sort of "High Noon" confrontation, why should the ratepayers have to pick up the bill?

Mr. Heseltine: The alternatives to domestic rates have been the subject of a long period of discussion. There are many difficulties to be overcome, and the consultation paper will deal with them. The House will accept that the anomalies and the pressures of the rating system today are such that there is a need to replace it with a fairer system that would be subject to less criticism.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the problems of the ratepayers who, as he put it, are in the middle. It is with this in mind that I mentioned that the Government are considering legislation for next Session in order to bring home to the local authorities and their electorates in the areas concerned the consequences of their high-spending policies.

Mr. Michael Shersby: May I press my right hon. Friend to give the House some indication of the


interim measures that he has in mind, pending consideration of the consultation document? Will he say what consultation will take place with local authorities about those interim measures, and when he expects to bring them into force?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will appreciate that deliberately today I have not announced the specific measures that the Government are considering. But it is fair to say that within my Department a significant number of options are being considered. At this moment, while I am asking local government to revise its budgets, it would be seen as unnecessarily threatening, before I get any reaction to that exercise, to produce a catalogue of things that we might do. As my statement intimated, we are considering legislation for next Session. Therefore, there is not a great deal of time left, if we intend to do so, before I shall have to make further public statements.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: In his judgment of these matters, is the right hon. Gentleman fully seized of the importance of three factors? The first is the genuine needs of inner city areas such as Harlesden compared with the lush pastures of Henley. Secondly, there is the responsibility of local authorities with large ethnic minorities. Thirdly, in the International Year of Disabled People, is it not appalling to ask local authorities to cut expenditure in that direction?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will appreciate that we have made no suggestion that expenditure on the disabled should be cut. Indeed, within my Department, where I have a specific understanding on this question, we have made definite attempts to ensure that a greater concern will be shown for the disabled, particularly in this year.
The hon. Member asked me about the problems of the inner cities and of the ethnic minorities. It is precisely because we recognise that there are these difficulties between local authorities that we introduced the grant related expenditure assessment concept, so that there could be a statistical reflection of the distribution of rate support grant. If any hon. Members are not satisfied about the insistence placed upon those factors, now is the time to have a discussion about the additional weight that

should be given to them. It is the first time that anyone can have such a discussion, either in this House or in local government, about the priorities that we should select.

Mr. Robin Squire: Will my right hon. Friend, when he is contemplating penalties in the autumn, consider moving away from the 1978–79 outturn as a base? In practice, it has penalised a large number of authorities which have complied with the wishes of successive Governments over a number of years.
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend, when his consultation statement is issued, ensure that due attention is paid to the Layfield recommendation that rates should not be abolished but topped up by other forms of income, thus preserving some independent source of finance?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that my hon. Friend will want to see this issue properly ventilated at the time of our consultation process. He mentioned the conflict between the 1978–79 volume targets and the GREA targets, if they are to be so described. We have never accepted that they should be. I am anxious to have a discussion with local authorities about how we can move from the 1978–79 base line, which becomes progressively outdated, but as yet I have had no positive suggestions from local government.

Mr. David Stoddart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the concept of the relationship between local government and central Government is one of partnership? I speak with 18 years' experience of local government at my back. It is not a concept which means having a mace-wielding gauleiter imposing his will on local authorities which have responsibilities to their electors and to their ratepayers.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also understand that in Wiltshire—which he was praising not long ago for holding the rate by cutting services—the authority is expecting to be penalised by £3 million? Is not that kicking his friends in the teeth?

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Member has had so much experience in local government, he must have seen Labour Secretaries of State putting forward precisely the same argument that I am putting forward today. Indeed, the most conscious intervention of the sort that the hon. Gentleman mentioned was by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar who, without consultation and without a statement in Parliament, told local authorities that they must reduce their expenditure, and introduced a penalty in order to ensure that they did so.

Local Authority Expenditure (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on current expenditure by local authorities in Wales in 1981–82.
My Department has analysed the local authorities' budget plans for 1981–82, and these show that in aggregate planned current expenditure will exceed the Government's target by about 2·2 per cent. or £21 million at November 1980 prices.
Any current expenditure excess is a matter of serious concern and I have given very careful consideration to the need for corrective action. In doing so I have taken account, first, of the fact that in recent years budgets have in aggregate overstated the actual volume of current expenditure by proportions not dissimilar from the present indicated excess, and, secondly, the considered view of the Welsh local authority associations that the Government's current expenditure target will be met.
In view of these considerations, and noting that in aggregate Welsh local authorities have clearly made efforts to meet the Government's current expenditure targets, I have decided not to call for revised budgets or to withhold grant at supplementary report stage this autumn.
In adopting this course, my determination to see that current expenditure is kept at the level allowed for in the RSG settlement is in no way lessened; rather, I am deferring judgment on the need to withhold grant. If, despite the local authority associations' views, there is an overspend this year, I will take action to reduce the total amount of grant available by the amount of that excess. In so doing I would protect authorities who had made an appropriate contribution to the necessary expenditure reductions.
This decision reflects my trust that Welsh local authorities will meet our expenditure target. It is entirely up to them, both individually and collectively, whether I will need to withhold grant at a later stage.
I have communicated this decision to the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. I have also told it that I shall be consulting it in due course about the matters concerning the rating system to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment referred at the end of his statement this afternoon.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Does the Minister feel that running through the whole statement there is a thread that the lesson of the loss of South Glamorgan two months ago has not gone unheeded? For that change of heart, which may be only temporary, we should be grateful, and grateful also that the reductions in services and hardship suffered by the electorate will not be aggravated by further cuts. This appears, for the time being, to be a standstill decision. We are glad that although the majority of Welsh counties and districts have possibly transgressed, for the time being at any rate they are to be given a stay of execution and that we are to be saved from further injurious Government interference.
The sword of Damocles still hangs above us and may well strike some later. This is a sneaking imposition of further controls. Why did the Secretary of State not have

the courage to come into the open before the county council elections? Let him remember that the district elections will be available for the electorate to make their views known next year, should further cuts be made.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman's reaction to my statement is in sharp contrast to that of the local authority associations, which recognise its importance. and recognise also that it confirms the Government's willingness and ability under the new RSG system to deal separately with the problems of Wales. They recognise, too, that we are responding to their undertakings and their belief. They said that they believed that they could meet the Government's targets and they noted that I was placing that responsibility firmly on the local authorities.
As to South Glamorgan and press reports that it may revise its budget upwards and introduce a supplementary rate, I have made it clear that if there is an excess of expenditure and I have to come back on this, those authorities that are responsible for it will have to pay the penalty. If South Glamorgan, or any other authority, increases its spending plans it will face the possibility of a larger hold-back some time next year. That will mean that the electors of that authority will face a heavier rate burden next year, in addition to the supplementary rate burden that would be imposed this year.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I propose to allow these questions to run till 4.25 pm, which, with our customary Welsh brevity, ought to enable us to get everyone in.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a general welcome for the degree of co-operation that he has received from several of the Welsh local authorities? In connection with the questions asked about English local authorities where there has been a change of political control and a decision to levy another rate, will my right hon. Friend implore any authorities that contemplate such action, including South Glamorgan, to think again, in view of the injurious effects that it would have on many companies and firms that are facing other difficulties?

Mr. Edwards: In my consultations with the local authority associations I thanked them for their co-operation collectively, which has enabled me to take this decision. To those authorities that might introduce a supplementary rate I pointed out that not only would that have an impact on them, but that it could create an excess overall that would penalise all other local authorities that had not fully met the targets. It would have the effect of imposing an additional rate burden next year in addition to the supplementary rate burden this year, which could only be damaging for business, industry and those who are seeking to provide jobs in those local authority areas.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I welcome the Government's initiative in considering alternatives to the domestic rating system. This is long overdue. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that his Government will bring forward legislation in the next parliamentary Session or within the next three years to change the system? If the Secretary of State is going to claw back the £22 million suggested in his statement, by how much will unemployment rise in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: On the first point, I cannot give a timetable for the major change that would be needed to


alter the whole system of finance for local government following a period of consultation. This is a major long-term exercise and it is impossible to give an undertaking. As to a clawback of £21 million or £22 million, the point is that the local authorities have told me that they do not expect there to be any need for this. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's last question is hypothetical and there is no need for me to answer it.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Welsh local authorities, whatever their political complexion, need the support of a resolute Secretary of State if they are to resist plausible demands for ever-higher expenditure, which can only result in rate increases which will inflict great hardship on individuals and lead to massive local unemployment as firms are driven out of the area?

Mr. Edwards: I made it clear to the local authorities that I was as determined as was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see that the Government's spending plans were met. The local authorities believe that they can do this. I also emphasised to them the point made by my right hon. Friend about the effect that excessive rates have on industry, and therefore on jobs.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does the Secretary of State realise that with an increase in unemployment of over 80 per cent. under this Government there are massive problems facing local authorities? Should he not therefore think of giving them extra resources to spend, since there is a need during a recession to indertake public works to encourage employment? Will the consultative document that is to be issued on the rating system deal also with the water rate? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider abolishing the water rate, rather than revising it?

Mr. Edwards: The water rate is a different issue. My statement deals with the rating system for local government. On the first point, as the Government have stated repeatedly, the overall levels of public expenditure and their impact on borrowing and interest rates are extremely important if we are to see the economy turn round, as we all hope. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment pointed out a few minutes ago, one of the difficulties in calling for capital programmes of the kind suggested by the hon. Member is that local authorities have used their resources increasingly on consumption, and therefore made those programmes more difficult to achieve.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Welsh Members will be pleased that this statement differs significantly from that of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment? The issues being forced upon the people were spelt out by the Layfield committee several years ago and were touched on by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells). Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman prepare a White Paper, or a Green Paper, setting out in broad terms proposals to maintain local government as local government and to finance it locally, with all the economic consequences for Wales, so that the Welsh people may make a judgment on their position in this grossly over-centralised country and its assorted financial arrangements?

Mr. Edwards: We have said that we will issue a consultative document on alternatives to the rating system, not on alternatives to the structure of local government. We are not contemplating putting forward a consultative document on changing the status of local government. We are concerned with consultations about the nature of local government finance.

Mr. Keith Best: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the enthusiasm with which his statement has been greeted by all Opposition parties, with the exception of members of Plaid Cymru, who, regrettably, are not in their seats, will be echoed throughout the whole of Wales, because it allows local authorities to order their own houses and is not a diktat from the Government? This freedom is so often decried by those who are less than enthusiastic about what the Government are trying to do. Will my right hon. Friend also tell the House, lest it be thought that the Members of the principal Opposition party actually represent what the local authorities believe, that when he met the authorities they, too, were enthusiastic about what he had to say?

Mr. Edwards: The local authorities gave a warm welcome to what I had to say and expressed their thanks that I was prepared to accept their word that they would meet the Government's objectives in their own way. The chairman of the Welsh Counties Committee said that I was placing the responsibility firmly on local government as a whole. He welcomed the fact that I did not intend to pick out individual authorities, but was confident that local authorities collectively could come up with what the Government were asking for.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call all those hon. Members who have been seeking to catch my eye.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that, despite his statement, all our local authorities are fed up with his dictatorial attitude? Whereas the measures that he has introduced penalise the ratepayers, it is the elected representatives who have to take the can back when services prove to be inadequate. Need I remind the Secretary of State of the disgraceful way in which Newport has been treated over the sale of prefabricated houses? Added to this is the confusion that has been caused over this issue by the broadcast made by the Under-Secretary of State last week in the "Week In-Week Out" programme. Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman gave priority to clearing up this issue for the Newport ratepayers?

Mr. Edwards: The representatives of the local authorities who saw me this afternoon thanked me for not pursuing dictatorial policies and spoke in exactly opposite terms to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes). I am glad that Newport has reversed its decision and decided to accept its responsibilities under the law of the land and to carry out the law as it has been passed by Parliament.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my county of Powys had the lowest increase in expenditure in percentage terms of any county in England and Wales? While I appreciate that he has no intention of penalising overspending authorites, will he consider giving a bonus to Powys, which has pulled its weight?

Mr. Edwards: I congratulate the local authorities that have achieved these reductions and therefore made the task easier for local authorities elsewhere in Wales which, because the overall spending of local authorities is not over the aggregate target, will perhaps not be penalised.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Secretary of State saying any more than that on the past record of underspending on budgets the Welsh local authorities are likely to be on target? Does not that target, as a result of high unemployment and demographic factors, mean real cuts for Welsh ratepayers and Welsh residents?

Mr. Edwards: We asked for a reduction in expenditure by local government. By the way that they have set about this task the Welsh local authorities have shown that this is possible without destroying services, and, incidentally, have set a very good example for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: We hear a great deal about the traditional relationship between central and local government. Is it not also traditional that elected councillors are entitled to put proposals to electors which may or may not lead to an increase in rates? The councillors in South Glamorgan put forward proposals and won a mandate from the people. Will the right hon. Gentleman state that he will not interfere with the democratic right of the people of South Glamorgan?

Mr. Edwards: I am saying that if there is an aggregate excess expenditure I shall act to correct that excess. The authorities that are responsible for that excess will have to pay for it. If one local authority chooses to increase its budget, that will threaten the position of other local authorities and, inevitably, the local people will have to pay higher rates next year as well as this year.

Right of Reply in the Media

Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give members of the public the right to reply to allegations made against them in the press, or on radio or television,; and for connected purposes.
The concentration of press ownership has gone so far in Britain that five groups now control 95 per cent. of the circulation of daily newspapers and 96 per cent. of the circulation of Sunday newspapers. As Mr. Baldwin said, they have power without responsibility. One man, Rupert Murdoch, ownsThe Sun, TheNews of the World, The Times andThe Sunday Times, as well as newspapers in America and Australia.
On 27 April, the latest available date, the circulation ofThe Sun was 3,845,575 copies. That means an estimated readership of about 10 million. A story appearing in its columns can do untold damage. The Bill aims to give the public a limited safeguard. I declare an interest as a former reporter on theManchester Evening News and theDaily Herald, and as a lifelong and continuing member of the National Union of Journalists.
I take a typical case of the distortion practised by several national newspapers. The front page headline
Cancer patients sent home to die
was published during the "winter of discontent", 1978–79. It would be difficult to imagine a report more damaging to the hospital and the union concerned—indeed to the whole Labour and trade union movement.
I have checked the facts carefully with the union concerned, the National Union of Public Employees. The facts are that the decision was taken by the director of radiotherapy, not by the area health authority, nor by the union. The most serious cases were not sent home. The area health authority and the union issued a denial. Some papers printed it, but it appeared in a couple of sentences buried in the midst of a long story.
What remedy has an aggrieved individual, company or organisation? Precious little. It can take the Press Council months to announce a decision, and by that time it is too late; the damage has been done. Moreover, the Press Council has no power to require the newspaper concerned to print that decision. In two recent cases the paper refused to do so. A poor person has the utmost difficulty in suing for libel, although Sir James Goldsmith has no such problem. Legal aid is not available for libel cases.
The Bill aims to provide a legal right of reply. Britain has been lagging in this respect behind many European countries. Such a law has operated successfully for many years in West Germany, France and Denmark. I am grateful to the ambassadors of those three countries in particular for providing me with details, and to Tom Baistow, a highly respected British journalist, who has inspired the proposal in this country.
Under my Bill an individual, organisation or company will be able to require the editor of a newspaper which has carried a factually inaccurate or distorted report involving that individual, organisation or company to print a reply within three days. The reply must be printed free of charge and be of equal length to, and in the same position as, the original article. If the editor refuses, the case will go to court, and the court must decide within 10 days. If the complainant's right of reply is upheld, the editor will be required to print it immediately and also to pay a fine


varying between £2,000 and £40,000. In election periods the three-day limit will be reduced for daily newspapers to 24 hours.
The same right will apply where there has been a misrepresentation or distortion of fact on the radio or television. This is vital, as damage can be done on these media before an even wider audience than the readership of a newspaper. The existing libel laws will continue and in no way be changed.
The Bill is on almost identical lines with the French law. In that country in the case of television there have been, in the years 1976 to 1979, 19 instances where the right of reply has been exercised by private individuals, and 13 instances on Radio France. In addition, the right of reply has been exercised three times on French television by Opposition parties.
The question may be asked, why go to all this trouble for 35 cases? The answer surely is that the law has meant that hundreds or thousands of other cases have been prevented because TV and radio have become more responsible and more cautious.
I expect that if leave to introduce the Bill is opposed, two arguments will be used. The first is that the Bill would interfere with the freedom of the press. Certainly, it would hinder papers from telling lies without any recourse by those calumniated. It would greatly increase the freedom of the individual. This is an extension of democracy, not a curtailment of it.
The second argument, I fancy, will be to ask who would decide that a story was false, misleading or distorted if the editor denied that it was so? This objection has not proved insuperable in other countries. In West Germany, if required, a court of law decides. In Denmark, the appeal may go to a corrections commission. In France, a case involving the press goes to court. In an appeal involving radio or television, which is evidently considered more serious, a case goes to a five-member commission attached to a Minister and consisting of two members of the Conseil d'État, two members of the Cour de Cassation, roughly the appeals court, and a member of the Higher Council for Audio-Visual Affairs. These gentlemen may not be connected with radio or television companies. Under my Bill, in the case of dispute, the issue would be left to the court.
The Press Council has received many complaints about the failure of editors, as the present law stands, to publish letters correcting misreporting or deliberate misrepresentation. The TUC last autumn overwhelmingly voted for a right of reply for victims of media bias or distortion. The Labour Party media study group, composed of working journalists, broadcasters and other media experts, unanimously supports the proposal.
I am not suggesting that this Bill is a panacea. It is a limited but positive measure. The bias against the Labour, trade union and peace movement will continue in most of the British media for as long as ownership remains as it is. However, the Bill will draw some of the claws of the media magnates. It will help people of all political persuasions and of none. I need hardly add that Conservative Members too, can be misrepresented in the media. It has happened.
Some of the more serious effects of editorial bias could be quickly—I stress the word "quickly"—prevented by this relatively simple Bill. It would be a deterrent to newspaper owners who flout the Press Council's limited powers with impunity. I hope that hon. Members of all parties will carefully consider the Bill and its objectives which affect all of us. I am confident that, even though this is only a first airing of the proposal, it will eventually—like the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965—become part of the law of the land. I seek leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr.Alexander W. Lyon, Mr. Phillip Whitehead, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. John Tilley, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. David Watkins, Mr. William Wilson, Mr. Dennis Canavan and Miss Jo Richardson.

RIGHT OF REPLY IN THE MEDIA

Mr. Frank Allaun accordingly presented a Bill to give members of the public the right to reply to allegations made against them in the press, or on radio or television; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered,
That the Report [20 May] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Le Marchant]

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:
That—
(1) The order in which proceedings on Consideration are taken shall be New Clauses, amendments to Clauses 1 to 33, Schedule 2, Clause 34, Schedule 3, Clauses 35 and 36, Schedule 4, Clauses 37 to 39, Schedule 5, Clauses 40 to 46, Schedule 6, Clauses 47 and 48, Schedules 7 to 9, Clause 49, Schedule 1 and New Schedules.
(2) The allotted days which under the Order [29 April] are given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

Allotted day and Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day



Government New Clauses
7.00 pm


Remaining New Clauses
Midnight


Second day



Amendments up to the end of Clause 12
9.00 pm


Amendments up to the end of Clause 32
Midnight


Third day



Amendments up to the end of Clause 49
8.00 pm


Remaining proceedings on Consideration
9.00 pm


Third Reading
Midnight

Orders of the Day — British Nationality Bill

[IST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

RIGHT TO REGISTRATION AS BRITISH CITIZEN BY VIRTUE OF FATHER'S CITIZENSHIP ETC.

`(1) A person born in a foreign country within five years after commencement shall be entitled, on an application for his registration as a British citizen made within the period of 12 months from the date of the birth, to be registered as such a citizen if the Secretary of State is satisfied—

(a) that the requirements specified in subsection (2) are fulfilled in the case of that person's father; and
(b) that if that person had been born before commencement and had become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of section 5 of the 1948 Act (citizenship by descent) as a result of the registration of his birth at a United Kingdom consulate under paragraph(b) of the proviso to section 5(1) of that Act, he would immediately before commencement have had the right of abode in the United Kingdom by virtue of section 2(1)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 as then in force (connection with United Kingdom through parent or grandparent).

(2) The requirements referred to in subsection (1)(a) are that the father of the person to whom the application relates—

(a) immediately before commencement or at his death (whichever was earlier)—

(i) was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of section 5 of the 1948 Act (citizenship by descent) or was a person who, under any provision of the British Nationality Acts 1948 to 1965, was deemed for the purposes of the proviso to section 5(1) of the 1948 Act to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only; and
(ii) was married to that person's mother; and
(iii) was ordinarily resident in a foreign country (no flatter which) within the meaning of the 1948 Act; and
(b) either—

(i) became a British citizen at commencement and remained such a citizen throughout the period from commencement to the date of the application or, if he died during that period, throughout the period from commencement to his death; or
(ii) would have become a British citizen at commencement but for his death.'.—[Mr. Raison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 100, in clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (2) to (7) and insert—
'(2) A person born outside the United Kingdom who is not a British citizen by virtue of subsection (1) shall be such a citizen if the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate or High Commission within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later, and either the father or the mother was a British citizen at the time of birth.'.
and Government amendment No. 24 and amendment No. 89, in clause 12, page 10, line 41, after 'descent)', insert—
'otherwise than by virtue of paragraph(b) of the proviso of section 5(1) of the 1948 Act (citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of consular registration)'.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The intention of the new clause is to preserve for a transitional period of five years the effect of the current facilities for passing on citizenship by consular registration where it gives the right of abode here. The Government believe that the current arrangements for the transmission of citizenship as a result of consular registration are not satisfactory. They operate only if the father is a citizen by descent. They do not extend to cases where only the mother is such a citizen. They also operate only in foreign countries.
Registration of births does not lead to citizenship where the birth takes place in a Commonwealth country. Consular registration can also preserve citizenship by descent where the links with this country are in practice minimal. For these reasons, the Bill that we introduced in January did not provide for the continuation of this system of passing on citizenship. I should like, to help to put the matter in context, to remind the House of what the Bill proposes on descent. It proposes that in general citizenship shall be passed on to children born overseas for one generation. That is already the position as far as children born in Commonwealth countries are concerned. Little difficulty would appear to have arisen. It seemed to the Government not unreasonable to apply the same system to foreign countries. This meant ending descent through consular registration. If we are to base citizenship on some form of close connection with this country, we have to limit citizenship by descent.
One significant extension of the descent arrangements is proposed in clause 2. This is that women as well as men should be able to pass on their citizenship to children born to them in the first generation overseas. In effect, this increases enormously the chances of a child born overseas having a parent from whom he can derive our citizenship. It must be the case that many of the people who are concerned about the ending of consular registration have nothing to fear because the wife will have been born in the United Kingdom or their children will marry wives born here. The extension of transmission rights to women is therefore not just a piece of meaningless window dressing. It has a marked practical effect on the extent to which our citizenship can be passed on.
The Bill also proposes in clause 3 a generous system of registration of children whose parents are in various forms of overseas employment at the time of their births. This applies to births in Commonwealth countries as well as in foreign countries. The clause requires that the employment be linked with the United Kingdom but amendments that the Government have tabled would ensure that all reasonable connections with the United Kingdom through employment are covered. We have taken careful note of the representations made to us in this regard and have met many of the points made to us. This is, therefore, another area where those who are concerned about the cessation of consular registration may well find that they have a r0069ght to register their children.
It is also often said that people sent abroad by their employers for limited terms of duty abroad will be penalised by the absence of consular registration in the future. This, I believe, is a serious misunderstanding of the overall effect of the Bill. It is unlikely that, in such cases of people being sent out from the United Kingdom, neither parent would be a British citizen born here, and so unable to transmit. If that happened, the employment overseas would often be covered by clause 3. If that was not the case, the child might still have an entitlement to


registration on coming to the United Kingdom and living here for three years with the parents after their tour of overseas duty was concluded.
I believe therefore that the descent arrangements in the Bill are at least as generous as those that apply under the current legislation. They are certainly more generous in their application to children born in Commonwealth countries who have no access to a form of consular registration. They are arguably no less generous than the provisions that I have mentioned that are taken into account than the current facilities in foreign countries. The introduction of descent through the female line is very significant.
Finally, before I come to the new clause, I would like to make one point clear. This concerns the right of abode. Consular registration may ensure that citizenship is passed on from generation to generation in the male line. But it does not ensure that the right of abode is also transmitted. Whether or not the child has the right of abode once registered depends on his having the requisite parental or grandparental connection with the United Kingdom. It is important to be clear about this since in some cases—where the descent from ancestors born here is remote—those who so prize the right to consular registration may well already be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies without the right of abode here. They would become British overseas citizens under the Bill. In almost all such cases the children concerned will also hold the citizenship of the country of residence.
Nevertheless, I was impressed by the arguments in favour of continuing consular registration to a limited extent. We agree that people who had a reasonable expectation of seeing their children acquire citizenship under the present arrangements should not be cut off in mid-stream at commencement. In other areas of the Bill, people who have entitlements to registration which are to be discontinued retain them on a transitional basis for five years. In our view, this is a reasonable basis on which to approach the current arrangements for consular registration, and that is what the new clause provides.
Subsection (1) provides that a person born in a foreign country within five years of commencement shall be entitled to be registered as a British citizen if the Secretary of State is satisfied on certain matters. Application must be made within 12 months of the birth. It should be noted that, although the end result is the same, the new clause provides for registration as a British citizen on application to the Secretary of State and not, as now, for citizenship to be acquired on registration of the birth at a consulate.
The matters on which the Secretary of State must be satisfied are as follows. The child's father must have been or be deemed to have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent before commencement who became a British citizen at commencement, or would have done so but for his death. If he survived to become a British citizen at commencement he must have remained one throughout the period from commencement to the date of the application unless he died first. He must immediately before commencement have been married to the child's mother, and he must have been ordinarily resident at commencement in a foreign country.
The matters that I have just mentioned preserve the effect of the existing law. Under that, only fathers can transmit, and they can only transmit in foreign countries

to their legitimate offspring. It is, therefore, only married men resident in foreign countries who can have a well-based expectation now of being able to transmit their citizenship by consular registration.
I should mention that subsection (1)(b) of the new clause ensures that no child shall be registered as a British citizen unless he would, had he been consularly registered under the law in force now, have acquired the right of abode here on registration. I have mentioned already that the right of abode may not be acquired now in all cases. Where it is not acquired, those concerned will become British overseas citizens under the Bill. Amendment No. 40 to clause 24 ensures that a child who does not qualify for British citizenship because he would not have acquired the right of abode under the legislation in force now, will be able to be registered as a British overseas citizen.
Amendment No. 24 to clause 12 provides that any child registered under the provisions of this new clause shall be a British citizen by descent. That is obviously right, given that those who become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies now on consular registration become such citizens by descent only.
New clause 2 makes parallel arrangements for registration as a citizen of the British dependent territories. Amendment No. 40 provides that in certain circumstances the child of a British overseas citizen may also benefit from a similar provision.
I sum up our proposals in this way. The present arrangements for citizenship to descend on consular registration of birth is not satisfactory. It is right that it should disappear from the permanent provisions for acquiring our citizenship. However, despite the generous alternative provisions for descent introduced by the Bill, we accept the case for a transitional five-year extension of the effects of the current consular registration entitlement. This will ensure that people are not cut off suddenly at Royal Assent with no opportunity to consider their situation. Five years seems enough time in which to ensure that people get used to the Bill's new descent provisions, which should in fact lead to very few difficulties for those concerned. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I find myself in general agreement with the purpose of the new clause. However, I wish to raise a query in regard to subsection (2)(a)(ii) of new clause 1, which provides as a requirement that the father shall immediately, before commencement, have been married to the mother of the person for whose citizenship the new clause is providing. I wonder whether the effect is really what is intended and, if so, what the justification is.
It would mean that if, after the birth of the person concerned, the couple were divorced the facilities of this new clause would no longer apply. I am not clear why that is equitable, since the condititons for the child securing British citizenship were fulfilled at the time of the child's birth, both in the case of the father and as to the fact of the marriage. Is it reasonable that those conditions should, as it were, be retrospectively revoked by a subsequent divorce or separation, which surely can have no effect—or should have no effect—on the status and rights of the child? Perhaps I have misapprehended the consequences of subsection (2)(a)(ii), but if I am correct, it would appear to need justification.

Mr. Michael Mates: I wish to speak to the amendment standing in my name and in the name of 18 of my hon. Friends. Early-day motion 333 on the Order Paper expresses exactly the same sentiments as my amendment. It has been signed by 23 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, so the stated support for this is from 34 of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The purpose of my amendment is to try to put right an unfairness which I see developing as result of the changes which the Government are making regarding nationality by descent.
I welcome the changes, which are entirely on the right lines. I do not challenge anything that has been done by way of change in the system of acquiring and transmitting nationality. However, there is one group of people who I believe will be unfairly treated if the Bill as drafted is not changed. They are the people born overseas of British subjects, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies with a right of abode here, who, until the Bill becomes law, can transmit their British citizenship, whomsoever they marry but who, when the Bill becomes law, will cease to be British subjects—as all of us will be—and will become British citizens by descent and not full British citizens. Therefore, they will not be able, other things being equal, to transmit their nationality unless they fulfil certain other qualifications. I appreciate that there are certain ways that they can put this right, but there are people alive today who were born with the right of transmitting their descent, and that right will be taken away from them retrospectively if the Bill is passed unamended.
One of the principles that we have always tried to apply is that we do not take away any rights that people have had because we are changing the law, however good a reason there is for a change in the law. There has been much discussion and worry about this matter. I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members who were on the Committee on the Bill have received a great deal of correspondence. I shall not bore the House at great length but I should like to read two letters from constituents. They express worries which I cannot answer. I do not believe that the Government can answer them either, unless an amendment such as that which I propose is carried.
One constituent says:
I am writing to you in your capacity as a Member of the Select Committee on the Nationality Bill. After completing National Service in the RAF in Singapore I qualified as a chartered accountant in 1955 and joined Price Waterhouse in Brussels after an interview in London. In due course I got married here and my children—now 20 and 18—were born here. I understood them to be British by birth"——
that, of course, is not a phrase which means anything in law, but my constituent considered his children to be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, as indeed they were——
but it appears that they were 'only' British by descent. Under the Bill, if they have children outside the UK and the other parent was not born there, such children will not have British Citizenship and right of abode in the UK. I feel that this retroactive change in their status and rights is completely against British legislative tradition and not just upsetting to people like me and my children but also against British interests.
My constituent goes on to make some other points. His is a fundamental point which I cannot answer as the Bill stands.
The second letter is of the same substance but the situation is the other way round. My constituent writes:

My wife and I are most concerned about the Nationality Bill, and the potentially damaging effects its provisions would have on our unborn child.
I work for an international company, in a subsidiary whose output is mainly exported. I have been offered the opportunity to further my career in the company's European headquarters, which is located in Paris.
The appointment begins before the expected date of birth of our child…Under normal circumstances, I should take up the job, and our child would be born in France—unfortunately, the Nationality Bill means that the child would then have only limited rights to pass on its UK citizenship to its own children, and this is a disability we should rather not inflict on it.
That is a problem for the future and one which, fortunately, can be put right. Nevertheless, it is an example of the potential injustice that we shall do if we pass the Bill as it is at present drafted because some people born with the right to transmit their nationality to their children will have that right taken away from them.
I am sure that the Minister will want to point out the many ways that a child can get the right back and that allowing us to transmit citizenship down the female as well as the male line will pick up many people whose fathers might have been born abroad, come home and married a girl born in Britain. There are many other ways that the problem can be put right; nevertheless the matter is fundamental. We should not be doing a service to the people whom we represent if we let anybody suffer as a result of our changing a system which needs changing but which at the same time takes away a birthright from people who believe that they can transmit their birthright and British citizenship to their children. Unless an amendment such as mine is passed they will not be able to do that.
That is why I earnestly ask the Government to accept the amendment. If they find that it is in any way faulty-I know that the matter is complicated—I hope that they will give an undertaking to find a better way of achieving what I want to achieve—that is, to put right the position of the small number of people born abroad whose births were registered at consulates, by which act the parents showed their intention to maintain their birthright as full British subjects. No Bill should take away that fundamental right from even one person who believes that he is a British subject.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) airs an issue that has given rise to a great deal of concern among those who are affected. However, I do not accept his argument. The anxiety has been exaggerated. Many people who feel that their children will be deprived of the right of citizenship will acquire citizenship. Most of the people who wrote to me described their circumstances and I found them to come within the provisions of clause 3. Their children will not lose the right to be British citizens. The hon. Member for Petersfield says that the right is historic and should be retained by the people who have that right now.
There is a basic injustice in consular registration. It applies only to births in an alien country. It does not apply to births in a Commonwealth country. Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have a child in a Commonwealth country are not entitled by registration to citizenship for that child. They may achieve it in other ways, but not by registration. The Bill puts right that basic inequity.
There is an additional problem. Some people affected by the change not only have the lineal right to register their children as citizens, but have a continuing interest in their


relationship with Britain. They return regularly, send their children to school here and live here at the end of each period abroad. However, some people who are entitled to consular registration in an alien country have little connection with Britain. The members of a whole community in the Argentine, for instance, claim a relationship and register their children as British although they have no real connection with Britain.
During our discussions on the Bill I have always been a little chary of talking about real connections, because some people have a defined view of what is a real connection. If it is to have any meaning in relation to citizenship, people who have not had any practical association with Britian for many generations should not be able to continue with citizenship for their children simply by registration at a British embassy.
I do not understand the proposed amendment precisely, but is does not involve simply the question of not removing retrospectively rights that children believe they have.

Mr. Mates: The amendment does not carry on the practice. It deals purely with those who on the day that the Act comes into force are consularly registered. It does not deal with the future at all.

Mr. Lyon: I understand the intention, but I am not sure whether it achieves that. I should be against continuing the practice. The argument about retrospection is a little fine. We are talking about a person as yet unborn. The person born has already acquired the citizenship. The argument is that that person, because he acquired citizenship by descent cannot pass on the right to his children who are not yet born and who can inherit only through him. I do not regard that as retrospective. It relates to future children. A person does not necessarily have the right to pass on citizenship to his children. That is not a right in any real sense of the word. I accept that there is a question of definition.
The issue is emotional. It involves people who believe that they have a right to continue to live abroad and to pass on their citizenship to their children. Under clause 3, most of the people will get the right of citizenship for their children. The few who will not, and who have a real relationship with Britain will be able to acquire citizenship for their children by bringing them back to Britain and registering them after three years.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that they already have the right of abode. That depends entirely on whether they can claim a grandpatrial or patrial connection with Britain. They may go beyond a grandpatrial connection. They may claim by lineal descent through a great-grandpatrial connection. In those circumstances, they would not necessarily be entitled to the right of abode. They may feel that they are British citizens because they can claim a passport. However, they would not be allowed to enter Britain because they would not be patrials under the 1971 Act.
5 p.m.
In future, if someone has a passport that says that he is a British citizen, the Bill ensures that he will be entitled to enter or leave Britain as he wishes, because he is a British citizen. That clarifies who comes within immigration law. If we muddy that clarification by a

system that gives citizenship to those who do not have the right of abode in Britain, there will be a serious danger of complicating what is already a too-complicated Bill.

Sir David Price: I wish to narrow the argument a little in taking up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates). I wish to raise with the Minister the special problems of nationality facing British Service men and their families. That problem is familiar to many hon. Members. Does the new clause, in conjunction with the amendments and clause 2, ensure that the children and grandchildren born to British Service men while overseas on Crown service receive British nationality as a right? I am not clear about that point. How far does the new clause put right some of the anomalies of the 1948 Act?
Any hon. Member who has served in the House for some time will have dealt with examples of some' of the injustices arising from the 1948 Act. I wish to refer to two such cases with which I am currently dealing. The first case we shall call "Mr. X". For three generations his family have been British Service men, and in each generation the son has been born overseas. Before the 1948 Act there was no problem and such persons held British citizenship. However, since the 1948 Act the position has changed. "Mr. X" was born in South Africa because his father was serving there during the South African war—which gives some indication of his age. He has only South African nationality, although he has not lived his life there since his birth.
Another, and more dramatic, case is that of "Mr. Y". He is a man aged 28 who has not held a passport since he became an adult. He had always been included on his parents' passport. He was born in Trieste, where his father was serving with the British Army.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The case of "Mr. Y" is on the front pages of today's newspapers.

Sir David Price: The hon. Gentleman may have different standards from mine. My constituent did not give me permission to use his name. If he has spoken to the press, I accept that he is entitled to do so. I am afraid that I am rather old-fashioned in such matters. When a constituent brings his problems to me I always maintain confidentiality. It is an important case, and I shall refer to it as "Mr. Y". If "Mr. Y" cares to talk to the press that is his responsibility. I am not at liberty—and I do not regard any hon. Member to be so—to use an individual's name if he has not given me permission to do so. "Mr. Y" has not given me that permission. I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) will forgive me, but I am old-fashioned in these matters. I believe in courtesy.
"Mr. Y's" father was serving with the British Army in Trieste when "Mr. Y" was born. He was registered at the consulate in Venice for what that is worth—apparently it is worth nothing. His father was a British citizen, but not of right because he was born in India, as his father was serving with the Indian Army. The grandfather was born in India because his father was serving with the Indian Army. Such cases are special. The law has been correctly applied by the authorities in relation to the 1948 Act.
The Bill deals with the special position of those on Crown service. I ask the Minister whether the cases that I have quoted will be put right retrospectively. I believe that it is the will of the House and the British public that


they should be put right. They are separate from the wider-ranging cases referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield, who dealt with the generality of British subjects serving overseas. I refer to the particular case of those on Crown service. I am capable of reading into the new clause, in conjunction with clause 2, that the position will be put right, but I am not sure that that is an accurate reading. I want an assurance on that point. If my reading is not correct, I want an assurance that the matter will be put right in another place.

Mr. David Steel: I am wholly in sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's argument, but why does he dwell on the distinction between those on Crown service—especially military service—and others? I have a parallel case of the daughter of a missionary in the former colony of Kenya. She is equally deserving of consideration.

Sir David Price: I hope that I carry the right hon. Gentleman with me. It is important to get the wedge in first. I can see no argument that can be used against those on Crown service, because such people, having accepted service for the Crown—whether in the Armed Forces or the Foreign Office—have no choice but to go where they are sent.
I accept that my reasoning applies to some extent to the missions and the private sector, but if we could at least establish a case for those on Crown service, having breached the wall there might be possibilities for widening the scope. The case for those on Crown service is irrefutable. I hope that the new clause covers that point. I see that the Minister is shaking his head. I assume that the new clause does not cover that point. It is an important matter, and I ask him for an undertaking on that point. Many men of my age were temporary soldiers, sailors and airmen during World War Two or shortly after. We have retained a feeling of comradeship with those in the Forces. The most honourable title that I have ever held, or will ever hold, was that of Guardsman Price. Because of that I feel a special responsibility to see this matter put right.

Mr. Greville Janner: Amendment No. 100, standing in my name, follows on from the argument now taking place. It arises not from the plight of soldiers or missionaries, but rather from that of academics.
The proposed position is wrong for three reasons. First, it creates and extends the discriminatory system that the Bill creates between different citizens in Britain—a distinction between the rights that can be passed on by those born in Britain and the rights of those who are only the children of those born here. For example, if an academic is working abroad in a university and his child is born overseas, the rights of the second generation will depend entirely upon the unfettered discretion of the Secretary of State. Such a case does not come under any of the exceptional cases set out in clause 3(2).
That brings me to my second point. In this part of the Bill, as in many other parts, the present power of the Secretary of State is left without hindrance and without the right of appeal. That matter will be dealt with later in our discussions, but it also arises on this part of the Bill. The lack of appeal makes the present system unfair. That inequity is transferred forward by the proposal set out in clause 3.
Thirdly, the exceptional cases that would be excluded by my amendment are set out in the complex provisions from line 10 on page 3 to the end of the clause. The provisions are not clear. For example, paragraph (c) at line 24 says:
the nature or terms and conditions of that employment"—
that is the employment that would qualify—
involved a close connection with the United Kingdom".
That term is nowhere defined and is open to many different interpretations.
If a citizen, or the child of a citizen who is born abroad, wishes to ascertain what to do to acquire either the rights that are in the subsection or to have the smile of approval upon his application from the Secretary of State, no guidance is given. The entire proposal is discriminatory and unclear. It enables the Secretary of State to make a decision without right of appeal. It is designed to deal with the present situation, of which I take a different view from that taken by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon).
I do not think that the present position does any harm. The number of people involved is small. Far more harm will be done by introducing the proposed change than by leaving matters as they are or making the changes set out in the amendment. The number of people involved, as I have said, is unlikely to be great but the principle is a main one.
The entire Bill is discriminatory and the new clause will extend that discrimination. The powers of the Secretary of State are unfettered and that should be changed. The exceptions are unclear and should be clarified if they are to remain. Whether we are dealing with missionaries, soldiers or academics, the few people involved should be protected in a way that is not proposed in the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: May I first, Mr. Deputy Speaker, raise a point of order? Will the Chair be prepared to allow a separate Division on amendment No. 89 on account of its many signatories and the fact that it raises an issue that is different in substance from the one raised by new clause 1? I do not know whether you can deal with the matter now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or whether it requires reference to a higher authority.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I shall be prepared to allow a Division if the amendment is moved at the appropriate time. Much depends on the progress of the debate.

Mr. Stanbrook: I and the other signatories will be pleased to hear your words, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
New clause 1 is a mere extension of consular registration. Its extension for five years is irrelevant to the case for a concession to Britons by descent under the Bill. One of the few effects that the new clause will have if it is enacted is that more Britons will be born abroad under the impression that they may pass their citizenship on to their children born abroad, as of right. That is wrong. However, that will be the impression among those who, under the Bill, will become Britons by descent. But they will not be able to pass on their citizenship. Whether the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is correct about whose right is involved is debatable, but children who have been born abroad before the Bill is passed and who have had their births registered abroad should be entitled to pass their citizenship on to their children born abroad.
z

The sense of injustice and grievance among those who become Britons by descent by virtue of registration will be increased rather than diminished by the new clause. Having heard the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I wonder whether he has understood the argument. I am sure that he has really but he was giving the impression that the new clause goes some way towards meeting the sense of grievance. If that is his view, I believe that he is wrong.
Consular registration has been available to every citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies born in a foreign country. The registration was by his father and had to be so under the existing law. The right of abode is a separate conception of the Immigration Act 1971 and could—in most instances—go with it. However, those whom we are discussing could confer full effective citizenship on their children as the law stands, because most of those who qualified for the right of abode obtained full citizenship.
5.15 pm
The effect of the Bill is to say that those people, Britons born abroad, are Britons by descent and, therefore, cannot confer any sort of British citizenship, not even citizenship by descent, on their children born abroad.
I accept—I am sure that this is the view of the other signatories to amendment No. 89—the principle that there cannot be indefinite transmission of British citizenship under our new rationalised and modernised nationality law.
When the hon. Member for York was speaking on this issue he referred to instances where consular registration has continued for generation after generation. He spoke of the lineage principle. He said towards the end of his remarks that only those who came within the definition of the right of abode—those closer in line—were entitled to full citizenship. Those in South America who may have been registered for generation after generation may now be entitled to call themselves citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, but they are not entitled to full citizenshipand will not be so entitled after the Bill is enacted. They are not entitled now as of right to come to settle in the United Kingdom. In this amendment we are dealing only with those of this generation and of the generation before them who are entitled to be Britons by descent under the Bill.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would they be entitled to British citizenship under the amendment to which the hon. Gentleman is speaking? If so, that would widen the entitlement to British citizenship to those who do not have the right of abode now.

Mr. Stanbrook: That is true up to a point. I do not want to go into that rather refined argument.
The amendment's aim is to perpetuate the present rights for those who are Britons by descent, who have been registered under consular registration, up to the time that the new Act comes into force. It is a strictly finite operation that is requested in the amendment. It is not one that seeks to transmit nationality indefinitely.
New clause 1 will create more Britons by descent who will not have the right of conferring citizenship on their children. That is the basic objection, if one can call it that, to the new clause. We shall be perpetuating a class of people whose nationality arrangements are unsatisfactory.
I accept that consular registration applied only to births in foreign countries. Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies whose children were born in the Colonies could not register their children. Nor could they do so if they were born in, for example, the Republic of Ireland. By definition the Republic is not a foreign country. The same situation applied if they were born in the Commonwealth. Again, they were not born in foreign countries and there was therefore no provision for consular registration.
Under the present nationality law, the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies goes automatically to children born in the United Kingdom and Colonies. Therefore, we are not comparing like with like. Children born to British people in the Commonwealth are entitled, because of that law, to the status of British subjects. Therefore, they are not cut off from the citizenship of their fathers.
There may be many people who are citizens, for example of Australia, who were born there while their parents, who were born in this country, were visiting or staying there for some other reason. Those people remain citizens of Australia, but as such they are British subjects and entitled to all the rights which derive therefrom. The Bill will cut them all off, whether they were born in foreign countries, in the Colonies or in the independent countries of the Commonwealth. It cuts them all off because their father, being a Briton by descent, cannot by right confer his British status on his children born abroad. That may sound neat and logical, but it is immensely unfair to those who have the right of passing their citizenship on to their children at present.
Is it a right in a father to be able to pass his citizenship to his son born abroad or is it the right of the son being born abroad to be British because his father was British by birth? Such an argument is irrelevant to the justice of the case. Either way, a right is being lost. It has been suggested that many people will benefit from the various arrangements made by other provisions of the Bill. Many of them will be entitled to British citizenship. Nevertheless, a number of people—perhaps a small number—will not be so entitled. That is a strong argument for dealing with the matter and not depriving them of the rights that they now have.
I have had the honour of presenting to the House three petitions on this question which have been sent to the House of Commons from different parts of the world. One came from Caracas in Venezuela. About 67 citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies living there asked that their children, being born in foreign countries, including Venezuela, should have the same right which their parents possess, namely to pass on their citizenship to their children.
Another petition which I had the honour of presenting to the House came from Freetown in Sierra Leone and was signed by about 43 Britons resident in Freetown. Recently, another came from Brussels, Belgium, signed by about 91 citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, whose children, being born in Belgium to parents who were born in Belgium—or at least in a foreign country—would not become British citizens, not even by descent, under the Bill. A petition was delivered to the home of the Prime Minister about a week ago from the British community in Brussels, signed by more than 1,000 such people, asking that the Bill be amended to permit them to retain the right to pass on their citizenship to their children.
Other hon. Members may have received communications from persons affected in that way. I have had many letters from different parts of the world, including Korea and other remote places. I have also had letters from many employers of British people around the world, who, for one reason or another, believe that their children will become Britons by descent and therefore will not be able automatically as of right to pass on their citizenship to their children born abroad.
The extra arrangements which my hon. Friend the Minister has mentioned will apply to the British community resident abroad. If those people come to this country for about three years with their children, they may register the children. They may do so if they are employed under certain conditions by British firms abroad, and also, through their mothers, they may have the right to transmit citizenship in future. Those arrangements are inadequate because in many cases, especially in the example of the three-year condition of residence, it may be impossible for the parents concerned, being employed abroad on a permanent basis, to give up their jobs to come to this country to live here for the necessary three years with those children.
The justice of the argument calls for an amendment to the Bill, as it is conveyed, in intention at least, by amendment No. 89. The essence of the argument is perhaps best described in relation to another provision in the Bill which says that immigrant Britons—that is to say, people who, being born abroad, have come to this country and have become naturalised or registered as British citizens—can confer their British citizenship on their children born abroad. However, if the children of Britons of the indigenous community in the United Kingdom are born abroad, they cannot pass on their citizenship to their children. That is wrong and anomalous and does a great injustice to the British community around the world. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friend will see his way to accepting amendment No. 89.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) let the cat out of the bag with his final few sentences. He repeated the point that he made many times in Committee, namely, that, in his view, those to whom he referred as ethnic Britons, irrespective of where they live, should not be treated any less fairly than those to whom he has just referred as immigrant Britons. The Minister of State, Home Office, who changed the Bill during our early sittings in Committee, must be rueing the day that he accepted the consequences of all the pressure that had been placed upon him and the Home Office to change the Bill as it stood before the Standing Committee so that people who were naturalised as Britons were able to confer citizenship as of right on their children. The hon. Gentleman came under a great deal of pressure from outside organisations and from Members of Parliament. Many of the problems that he has since faced from his own Back Benchers stem from that courageous decision that he took some months ago.
Conservative Members are right when they say that there is much pressure from people in this country and abroad to try to ensure that the citizenship rights of their children or grandchildren are not impaired. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is correct when he says that if we are to define British citizenship in such a way that citizenship will mean the right of abode in this country, a point must come when there is a cut-off period

and people who are born abroad and live there for two or three generations do not have the right to call themselves British citizens or the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Orpington and others argue that consular registration should persist for a few—namely, first or second generation children born abroad—but not for all those who have previously had that right, such as the Welsh community in Argentina. It is wrong to argue that one group should have the right to pass on citizenship by descent to two generations and another should not.

Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the case. The argument is not that consular registration should continue. That is what the Government are proposing under new clause 1. Amendment No. 89 would allow those who have been registered at a British consulate up to the time of the passage of the Bill to pass their citizenship to their children. That is different from extending consular registration.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman does himself a great disservice by that argument. He reinforces my point. He argues that the present generation, who up to the enactment of the Bill will have the right to transfer United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship to their children born abroad, should continue to have the right to pass on British Citizenship to their descendants.

Mr. Stanbrook: I apologise if I have not clearly explained the purpose of the amendment. The intention is that such people should be able to pass their citizenship to their children, making them Britons by descent, but Britons by descent cannot pass their citizenship to future generations, so clearly there can be a finite solution without injustice to anyone.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman never accepts the word "finite", particularly with regard to immigration. His argument does not refute my point. The amendment would apply to all United Kingdom and Colonies citizens presently living abroad whose births were registered at a consulate. It would give them the right to transfer the new British citizenship to their children, who would be British citizens by descent. As the Bill stands, it would give them an automatic right of abode in the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that?

Mr. Stanbrook: The question of right of abode is not at issue. We are discussing passing on citizenship. It has already been said that the right of abode is governed by the Immigration Act 1971. The matter should be judged in the light of that. It is suggested that Britons by descent, who are covered in this case, should be entitled to pass their citizenship to their children for one generation only.

Mr. Marshall: I shall not pursue the point further. Amendment No. 89 would mean that all United Kingdom and Colonies citizens presently living abroad and whose births had been registered at a consulate could pass to the next generation the right of consular registration. If their children were registered, they would become 13ritish citizens, whether the parents were first or second generation United Kingdom and Colonies citizens born abroad or had been abroad for five or six generations.

Mr. Stanbrook: No.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He accepts that the amendment would apply to all United Kingdom and Colonies citizens living abroad and registered at consulates, but he refuses to accept the conclusion to be drawn from that. Many people, such as the Welsh community in Argentina, many of whom are presently denied entry to the United Kingdom, would be eligible to become British citizens by descent and thus gain the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
I am annoyed, because the amendment would apply only to a particular group, the vast majority of whom are white. The amendment seeks to protect the rights of ethnic Britons, those who the supporters of the amendment define as white—and I share that desire—but also to take away meaningful rights from ¼ million United Kingdom and Colonies citizens who do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. Under the Bill they will be given a meaningless form of citizenship—British overseas citizenship. Although I am sympathetic to the arguments for the group covered by the amendment, it is hypocritical to restrict the provisions to a favoured few.
Finally, I seek guidance and information from the Minister of State. Under new clause 1, for a transitional period of five years the Home Secretary is prepared to say that a second generation child born abroad can become a British citizen by descent, with automatic right of abode in the United Kingdom. I presume that that is an attempt for the interim period to bring into line with the Bill people's rights under the Immigration Act 1971—namely, the right of entry and abode in the United Kingdom, either through a parent or a grandparent. At least for five years, the second generation born abroad will be able to be British citizens by descent.
What changes are likely to be made in the Immigration Act to protect—if protection is to be continued—the rights of entry and abode of second generation children born in foreign or Commonwealth countries after the five years, when they will no longer be able to register as British citizens by descent, but presumably will still have the right of entry? At the end of the five-year period, will the immigration rules be altered to remove right of entry and abode, or does the Minister intend to continue second generation right of entry and abode, without automatic citizenship? It indicates a degree of ignorance on my part that I cannot work that out from the new clause as it stands, and I hope that the Minister will shed at least some light on this part of new clause 1.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I support the amendment because I believe that unless an amendment of this kind is accepted by the Government serious injustice may be done in the future to a number of citizens of this country who were born abroad, because the right which they now have will be first restricted and ultimately extinguished by the Bill.
The aim of the amendment is simply to preserve the present right of fathers who are citizens of this country but who were born abroad to transmit their nationality to children who are born abroad. Unlike the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), I believe that this is a very valuable right. It attaches to the present generation and is a right which is understood, and valued, by the present generation.
I believe that it would be wrong for us to allow the retrospective effect of the Bill to destroy that right because it is wanted by many. To destroy it would be an unwanted and unnecessary effect.
The present law is, of course, anomalous. As we know, if a child is born in a foreign country to a father who is a citizen of this country and who was himself born abroad, at present the child may be registered at a British consulate in that foreign country, thus ensuring that it acquires British nationality. If the same child were born in a Commonwealth country, however, the nationality of the child may be decided by the nationality laws of that Commonwealth country. The Bill removes that anomaly, for which we are all truly thankful. At the same time, however, it deprives fathers who are citizens of this country, born in this country, of the ability, once the Bill becomes law, to transmit their nationality to their children born abroad unless—if new clause 1 is accepted, as I hope it will be—the registration is carried out within five years.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Can my hon. and learned Friend give the approximate numbers of people who would be affected if the amendment were carried?

Mr. Gardner: I tried to discover whether statistics were available, but I am afraid that I cannot give the number. All that I could find out—this seems to be agreed—is that it would be a comparatively small number. However, I am not greatly concerned about the number. I am moved by the principle, which I believe that the House should uphold.
At present, the right is unqualified. A right qualified by a restriction of time under new clause 1, as it would be if the amendment were not accepted, is no longer the same as an unqualified right. It is something different.
I object, as I believe many Conservative Back Benchers object, to retrospective consequences of this kind, because, as I have said, this is a valuable right. Indeed, it is so valuable that many of us would like it to be extended to children born in Commonwealth countries, but that would perhaps go a little too far and be a little too ambitious. They did not have the right before, and it would be hard to introduce it now.
5.45 pm
The other reason why there is such strong objection—I assure my hon. Friend the Minister of State that it is strong—to the legislation as at present proposed is that it not only diminishes that right but promises ultimately, after five years, to extinguish it. I ask the Minister of State to understand, as I am sure that he does, from the number of names attached to the amendment and the number of names that were attracted to the early-day motion setting out the spirit of the amendment, that this is a serious objection felt by many people.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State may be able to argue—I should be surprised if he did not—that the amendment has a technical defect or defects. But there is nothing wrong with the principle behind it. I therefore beg him to assure the House that if he cannot accept the amendment in its present form the Government will undertake to use their ingenuity to produce an amendment without defects which will reflect the strong desire of many Conservative Members for an amendment to be made which will have the effect of amendment No. 89.

Mr. John Tilley: New clause 1, to which we have no great objection, creates a series of hoops through which it is possible for some children born abroad to become British citizens and is clearly intended as an interim measure to reduce the immediate impact of the Bill. It is important to stress the series of inter-connecting hoops. First, the child must be born in a foreign country and not in a Commonwealth country. Next, the father must be a citizen by descent. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out, all these conditions are cumulative. In addition, the father must be married to the mother, and the grandfather must have been born in the United Kingdom.
A child must get through all those hoops to benefit from the clause, and this is just one of the many possible options for trying to obtain registration for children born abroad. Hon. Members who have studied the Bill will know that there are three or four possible methods of registration. All I wish to say on this clause is that I hope that Conservative Members who have shown great concern, which we share and acknowledge, for the Service men, missionaries and business men who are mainly affected by this part of the Bill, will show the same concern for all the other people who suffer inconvenience, injustice and worse under the later parts of the Bill.
I turn even more briefly to amendment No. 89. We are not particularly keen on this, for the reasons given by my hon. Friends the Members for York (Mr. Lyon) and Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), but we acknowledge that the hon. Members with their names to the amendment wish to vote upon it. Indeed, guidance was sought from Mr. Deputy Speaker, who said that it must be taken in its proper place. It is an amendment to clause 12. Under the guillotine motion, consideration of amendments up to the end of clause 12 must cease at 9 pm tomorrow. Clauses 1 to 12 involve a great deal of business, which many hon. Members will wish to debate. Therefore, it is very unlikely that Conservative Members will be able to move the amendment and to vote on it.
In reply to the letters that have been cited, and in reply to those constituents who ask Conservative Members why they did not force a Division on the amendment, I hope that they will say that they could not, because on Tuesday 28 April they voted for a guillotine motion that they thought would gag only the Opposition. I hope that they will say that they now find that it has gagged them as well. In addition, I hope that they will send those letters and that they will send one copy to me and one to their local newspapers.

Mr. Raison: The debate has focused more on my hon. Friend's amendment No. 89 than on the Government's new clause and Government amendment No. 24. I am inclined to take it, therefore, that there is fairly widespread agreement that the Government's proposals should be accepted. Therefore, I shall not waste hon. Members' time by covering that ground again. It seems widely understood that those proposals are right.
It is proper to answer the points made about our proposals. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) seemed—if I understood him correctly—to interpret subsection (2)(a)(ii) as meaning that the marriage had to be subsisting at the time of the application for registration. But the marriage has only to be in force immediately before commencement, as the opening words of subsection (2)(a) make clear. That means that a divorce

following the child's birth would not affect the issue. A divorce effected after conception but before the birth would not affect the child's legitimacy. The child would be legitimate in those circumstances and would he able to acquire the father's citizenship.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Perhaps I could illustrate the difficulty. I am sorry if, by a slip of the tongue, I said "birth" when I should have said "commencement", in relation to line 16 of new clause 1. Let us take the case of two children who are born several years before commencement and who have both been consularly registered. In the one case there is a divorce between birth and commencement and in the other case there is not. It would seem to me that the new clause differentiates and discriminates against the child whose parents have been divorced between birth and commencement. I do not see the justification for that. It would seem to run counter to the point of view taken in Committee in other contexts, when a similar consideration arose.

Mr. Raison: I am not sure if I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly. The provision concerns birth after commencement. Indeed, the first line of new clause 1 makes that clear. I do not see the force of the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
At one point, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said that I seemed to be indicating dissent. I was moving my head in the direction that is generally taken to show dissent, but that was because, although I respect the fact that he raised that point, it had nothing to do with the new clause under debate. There has been widespread concern about the position of children of Crown servants. One of the great blessings that the Bill will be seen to confer will be a substantial improvement in the position of children of Service men and other Crown servants. As has been said in many newspaper articles, letters toThe Daily Telegraph and so on, the Bill cannot pick up retrospectively all the bits and pieces. We should pose enormous problems for ourselves if we were to try retrospectively to solve all the problems of descent and of those born overseas in years gone by who face difficulties as a result. We feel that we cannot go into that. Many complications can arise. For example, a person might be landed with the citizenship of a country that he did not wish to hold.
One of the Bill's main ingredients is that it puts the children of Crown servants into the same position as those born here. If they are born overseas they will be effectively treated as if they had been born here. That is a great advance. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh referred to a case of a gentleman he called "Mr. Y'. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) pointed out, not inaccurately—I think that we are talking about the same case—that the case featured prominently in today's edition ofThe Guardian and that the name was given. I hope that my hon. Friend will not regard it as a breach of confidence if I call the gentleman Mr. Breese, as that is apparently his name——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Minister do me the favour of not turning his back on the Chair all the time? It is discourteous and happens too often.

Mr. Raison: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise.
Mr. Breese was born in Trieste. His father was a British subject without citizenship and could not transmit that


status to his son—it can only be held by people born before 1949. He could not derive citizenship from his mother, since citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies descends in the male line only at present.
Mr. Breese has apparently lived all his life in this country. Had the situation come to light at an earlier point—as normally one would have expected it to do—it would no doubt have been appropriate to register him under the Home Secretary's power to register any minor child. That important power is retained in the Bill. Mr. Breese is now 28 and the Home Secretary has no discretionary power to register any adult. Mr. Breese must therefore apply for naturalisation. In the special circumstances of his case, we should be prepared, exceptionally, to give his application every priority.
Occasional cases of this sort do come to light from time to time. This one is in fact a result of the 1948 legislation. Even under that legislation the situation could be rectified before the child reached majority. As I said, the Bill would in fact greatly reduce the chances of such a case occurring again, because under clause 2 mothers can transmit citizenship. While, therefore, I sympathise with Mr. Breese in his predicament, I cannot accept that the rather exceptional circumstances of his case mean that there is anything inherently wrong in the descent provisions of the Bill. Rather the reverse is true, since, as I have said, the chances of a recurrence in future will be greatly diminished by the Bill's provisions. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied by that.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: With the hon. Gentleman's permission, I shall interrupt him again if this is a convenient moment. In reply to my earlier question, he said that the clause applied only to those born after commencement. If the hon. Gentleman reads the first line of the new clause he will see that it does not, in terms, do that. I appreciate that line 7 has a retrospective implication. With great respect, I wonder whether the clause is so drawn as to make it clear that it applies only to those born after commencement, although within five years of it. Will the Minister take that into consideration?

Mr. Raison: I shall think about the right hon. Gentleman's point. The new clause begins:
A person born in a foreign country within five years after commencement,
I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I shall look into it. If there is some dubiety about it, we shall no doubt be able to find an opportunity to tackle it.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South raised a point that does not involve amendment No. 89. The new clause affects the right of abode in the following way. It ensures that if a child, on registration, would have the right of abode now, it would have it if registered on application during the five-year transitional period. No one would acquire the right of abode who could not acquire it if he had been born and registered at the consulate before commencement. As the hon. Member knows, we shall be looking in due course at the implications for the immigration rules of the Bill's provisions as a whole. As I said several times in Committee, I do not think that I can go further than that at this stage.
6 pm
I listened with great care to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends the Members for Petersfield (Mr. Mates),

Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and South Fylde (Mr. Gardner). I know that the topic has aroused considerable strength of feeling. I do not wish in any way to belittle the importance of the matter for those of our citizens by descent living overseas and anxious about their and their children's future. Nevertheless, I must put to my hon. Friends certain arguments on the matter which should, in my view, give them cause to reflect seriously before they seek to press the amendment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield anticipated, there is a technical flaw in the amendment. I do not want to build that up into something of great importance, but the amendment does not achieve its purpose, for although it would mean that citizens by consular registration were not citizens by descent under clause 12(1)(b)(i), they would still be citizens under clause 12(1)(b)(iii). That is because to become British citizens at all they must have had the right of abode under section 2(1)(b) of the 1971 Act. It is a deficiency which invalidates the amendment.
The main point that I have to put to my hon. Friends is that the amendment would create a major anomaly. The second generation born in foreign countries whose births were registered would become British citizens by birth, while the first generation born in foreign countries would be citizens by descent. I shall deal with that in a few minutes in rather more detail. The force of the point is that those whose connection was less strong would get the higher status, if I may put it in that way. That must be seen as being most unsatisfactory, whatever the objectives of the whole exercise.
I should perhaps make clear to the House that the primary purpose of consular registration is not to confer our citizenship on the children whose births are registered. The main purpose of providing facilities for the registration of births overseas is to enable the records so collected to form part of the comprehensive births, marriages and deaths records of the General Register Office in the United Kingdom. For this purpose, facilities for registering births are provided in every foreign country and in all Commonwealth countries except Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Zimbabwe.
There is no requirement on our citizens overseas to register the births of their children born abroad, but a great many do so because they may wish to have access to the birth record at a later date through United Kingdom sources, if possible. The registration of the birth in this way has no nationality implications in a Commonwealth country. In foreign countries, the vast majority of birth registrations probably carry no nationality implications either. Children born overseas to fathers born here are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent, whether or not their births are registered at the nearest consulate. Only where the father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent does consular registration serve to transmit citizenship to the child of a further generation. In other words, the consular registration leads to citizenship being passed on only if the father was born abroad.
The amendment would not, therefore, make all those persons consularly registered citizens as if by birth but the numbers concerned would be relevant. I was asked about that and will say a word about it.
Since 1949—that is, during the lifetime of the 1948 Act—over 250,000 people have had their births registered at consulates in foreign countries. We have no means of


saying precisely how many of these became citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent under section 5(1)(b) of the 1948 Act following their registration. Some research has been done, however, on the registrations for 1978. It revealed that about 730 —or just over 5 per cent. of the total for that year of 13,000—acquired citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a direct result of their registration.
If the 5 per cent. held good for other years—and we have no means of knowing whether it did or not—we would have a figure of 12,500 children who have acquired citizenship by consular registration under the 1948 Act so far. I would, however, remind the House that consular registration was introduced as long ago as 1914. I appreciate that the amendment covers only those who were registered under the 1948 Act. It might, however, be thought anomalous to exclude those who owe their citizenship to registration under earlier legislation. Many more would need to be added to the total of 12,500 if this were felt necessary.
I would, however, like to go back to the overall figures of consular registration since 1949. The figure of 250,000 clearly includes a great many people, perhaps as much as 95 per cent., born overseas and who did not need to be registered at a consulate in order to become citizens by descent. They presumably became such citizens automatically at birth because their fathers were born here. Those who needed consular registration, by contrast, were children whose fathers, and in some cases grandfathers or more remote male ancestors, were born overseas.
It is, therefore, a striking anomaly that would be created if the amendment were passed. Citizens by descent who were born to fathers born in this country would remain citizens by descent. Citizens by descent who were born to fathers themselves born overseas would be turned into citizens by birth. Sometimes, as I say, the link through ancestry could be as remote as a grandparent. It would not be more remote than that, since otherwise the child concerned would not have the right of abode. But the effect where the link was through a grandparent would be to extend the right of abode to the third generation born overseas instead of the second, as at present.
This does seem very unfair on the children born overseas to fathers born here. Yet, as I have indicated, their numbers are very substantial. It is difficult to see a way round the anomaly. If one extended my hon. Friend's amendment to cover all citizens by descent, large numbers of citizens by birth would be created, and many of them would not have close connections with the United Kingdom.
I therefore invite the House to consider whether it is really necessary or desirable to single out those registered at consulates in foreign countries for this anomalous treatment. I remind the House that the Bill makes generous provision for descent. I have already mentioned those provisions in detail. The extension to women of the right to transmit overseas will obviate the need for the amendment in a good many cases. Similarly, the broadened provisions for registrations on grounds of overseas employment will help in other cases. These are contained in the amendments to clause 3 which the House will be considering.
I mention the provision in clause 3(5) for the entitlement to registration of a child of a British citizen where that child lives with his parents here for three years.

Ample provision is made for the child born overseas to citizens by descent who retain a close connection with this country.
I have said already that I take seriously the arguments of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Stanbrook: I have been endeavouring to follow my hon. Friend's arguments against the present wording of amendment No. 89. Would it be possible to find suitable wording which restricted the passing of citizenship in cases such as this to one generation only, so that instead of creating Britons by birth we would be creating only Britons by descent, so that there would be only one generation involved? That would not have the consequences that my hon. Friend says amendment No. 89 would have. If it is possible to do that by the appropriate wording, surely it should be done, because the spirit of the amendment argues for itself.

Mr. Raison: I have said already that it is difficult to get round the problem that we have to face. I suppose that it might be possible to meet the point, but there is the problem that I have tried to illustrate of the disparity between those whose parents were born here and those whose parents were born overseas. I have not found an amendment that would satisfy my hon. Friends. That is partly because I believe that what we are putting forward in the Bill meets the problem. I am not, therefore, persuaded that we ought to do something else.
I should like to expand my arguments on the point. As I was saying when my hon. Friend intervened, I take the argument seriously, as, I am sure, does the House as a whole. It was to meet that argument that new clauses 1 and 2 were introduced, together with amendment No. 40. They would preserve this aspect of the scheme of consular registration for a further five years from commencement. But I do not believe that it is a denial of rights to provide, as the Bill does, that British citizens who were before commencement citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent should be British citizens by descent. Perhaps more important, I do not think that it is retrospective legislation to affect the possible citizenship claims of children who are as yet unborn.
The pattern that we have adopted in the Bill is to extend existing rights but not to keep them for ever. Therefore, what we are doing is not out of line with the general philosophy of the Bill. What we are trying to do is to move towards a rational and coherent system. Both in the case of Commonwealth people with an entitlement to register, who are no part of this debate, and in the important case that we are discussing in this debate, we recognise that there are current expectations, but we have taken the view that if we defer almost indefinitely moving fully towards the scheme that we believe to be the right scheme then in many ways, although we are not wasting our time, we are putting off the day when we can come up with the kind of structure which is the right one for citizenship of this country.

Sir Albert Costain: Could my hon. Friend clear up one point? Is it not a fact that if a third-generation mother came to this country for the birth of her child, that child would still be British by birth? If so, are we not giving nationality to those who can afford the air fare?

Mr. Raison: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that it is like that. There are problems about


achieving nationality through paying an air fare in that airlines are not always keen about taking pregnant women on board.
Leaving that on one side, the purpose of the provision by which a person comes back here for three years is that he is establishing the kind of close connection that we are looking for all the time. A three-year period of residence is stronger evidence that a person is closely connected with the country and has an entitlement to citizenship than is the fact that he had ancestors who were citizens but that he nevertheless decided to make his life overseas.
There are many different provisions by which those who make their lives overseas but retain close connections with this country, particularly through employment, can get back on board. We have to draw a line on the total passing on of citizenship by descent. In regard to this group of people, the extension for another five years after commencement, which in reality means more than five years from now, gives them a fair chance to make use of the existing system.

Mr. Edward Gardner: What my hon. Friend is saying is that if a father has a child within the five years he will have the right to transmit, but if he has a child after the five years that right will no longer be available to him. Does that seem right to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Raison: We are saying that the system that exists cannot continue indefinitely. I cannot quarrel with my hon. and learned Friend about that. I have tried to make the point that we think that there is a scheme that is ultimately the right one. I do not think that that has been disputed by the House as a whole, which accepts our long-term objective. The argument is about the transitional period, and only about people who are overseas before commencement. Even at that it is not an indefinite transition.
In the Bill we have generally taken the view that the transitional period should be limited rather than indefinite. That remains our view. At the very least I hope that my hon. Friends will see that their amendment would produce substantial anomalies by the arbitrary way in which citizens by descent whose fathers were born abroad would be made citizens by birth, while those whose parents were born here would be citizens by descent. I hope that my hon. Friends will not press their amendment, because its deficiencies are obvious. As they think about the matter I hope that they will see that we are right to move after what is a reasonable concession in regard to the transitional period towards the scheme that is recognised on all sides of the House to be the right one.

Mr. Mates: I am grateful to the House for letting me speak again. Naturally I am disappointed that my hon. Friend has not felt able to accept the spirit of my amendment. Let me say straight away that I accept the technical flaw that he alleges exists. I am not sure that I accept that it means that he could not agree to the inclusion of my amendment; from what he said, a further amendment would be needed to another part of the Bill. For that reason I am not inclined to ask leave to withdraw it.
Secondly, I want it to be clear what it is that I am seeking. It is not related to the five-year extension, which

is a different point. Perhaps I have not made it clear up to now. I will try once again, because this must have been my failure. I accept that anomalies would be created if this amendment were accepted, but the point is that what the Bill, as drafted, will do is to take away retrospectively rights that people had and people thought they had. That is what people are upset about. To make it crystal clear, I should like to express it in personal terms.
I went overseas 20-odd years ago, in Crown service. Three of my children were born in Germany. They were registered at the British consulate—two in Hanover and one in Dusseldorf. At the time I was quite clear that by the actions that I was taking I was handing on my British citizenship—my citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies—to my children. That consular registration was a conscious act. Of course, it has been picked up entirely in the Bill because I was in Crown service. The Government are absolutely right, and I congratulate them on having made this blanket coverage for all those who were in the service of the Crown.
Let us suppose that I had had a twin brother; that instead of going into the Services he had gone into business or industry; that he had come with his wife to Germany at the same time as I did; that his children were born in Germany; that he and I had gone along together to the British consulate, stood in the queue and registered respectively our children. He would have thought that he was doing precisely what I thought I was doing. He would have thought that by doing that he was ensuring for his children the right to be British subjects and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, as they were then, and he would have gone away as happy as I was, whereas now, under the Bill, his children would be becoming British citizens only by descent.
That is where I argue with my hon. Friend. It is not about what may happen in the future. It is not about the transitional arrangements, correct and admirable as they are. This is a right that, whether or not we had it, we believed that we had it in both cases, one real and the other hypothetical. But many people have written to me who did just as I did all those years ago. They are deeply concerned. They felt that they were enshrining rights in their children, just as I enshrined rights in my children. Their children are not going to have those rights.
Unless we change it, the Bill will take away from such a child that right, so that he is a British citizen only by descent and he cannot, unless there are other factors that pick him up, transmit his citizenship to his children, whereas my children can, and can continue to do so as a right. That is not fair. That is the thing that I passionately ask the Government to agree to look at again. It cannot be right, although I agree with the Minister that many of these cases will be picked up.
Many people will have had mothers who were born in this country, and we have given them the right to transmit. Others will have come back here, lived here, and become qualified in other ways. Others can go through the process of registration, but in principle they should not have to. We should not be taking away from them a right they had at the time that they were born—a right that they will have until 1 January next year. Yet, by the chance that one is in Crown service and the other is not, that right is taken away. That is my fundamental objection. I beg the Minister most earnestly to say that he will look at the matter again.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

RIGHT TO REGISTRATION AS CITIZEN OF THE BRITISH DEPENDENT TERRITORIES BY VIRTUE OF FATHER'S CITIZENSHIP ETC.

`A person born in a foreign country within five years after commencement shall be entitled, on an application for his registration as a citizen of the British Dependent Territories made within the period of twelve months from the date of the birth, to be registered as such a citizen if the Secretary of State is satisfied—

(a) that the requirements referred to in subsection (1)(a) of section (Right to registration as British citizen by virtue of father's citizenship etc.) are fulfilled in the case of that person's father, subsection (2)(b) of that section being for the purposes of this paragraph read as if any reference to becoming or remaining a British citizen were a reference to becoming or, as the case may be, remaining a citizen of the British Dependent Territories; and
(b) that if that person had been born before commencement and had become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of that section, he would at commencement have become a citizen of the British Dependent Territories by virtue of section 20(1)(b).'.—[Mr. Luce.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 37.

Mr. Luce: The principle of the new clause was discussed in the context of new clause 1, which made provision for the circumstances in which the continuation of a registration system akin to consular registration should lead to British citizenship. The clause sets out the circumstances in which a parallel registration entitlement would, if exercised, lead to the child becoming a citizen of the British dependent territories.
The clause applies to any person born in a foreign country within five years after commencement, provided that application is made within 12 months of the birth. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the child's father meets certain requirements. The first is that the child's father was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent before commencement who became a citizen of the British dependent territories at commencement or would have done so but for his death. He must also have remained a citizen of the British dependent territories throughout the period from commencement to the date of application unless he died first.
The Secretary of State must further be satisfied that the child's father was married to the child's mother immediately before commencement and was ordinarily resident in a foreign country at that time.
The final requirement is that the child, had he been consularly registered before commencement, would have become a citizen of the British dependent territories at commencement by virtue of the provisions of clause 20(1)(b). That paragraph sets out the connections with a dependent territory through a parent or grandparent by virtue of which a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies would become on commencement a citizen of the British dependent territories.
I hope that the House will accept, for the same reasons that it accepted new clause 1, that it is reasonable to allow a process equivalent to consular registration to operate for a further five years from commencement in these cases. The clause does no more than preserve, for future citizens of the British dependent territories, the same possibility as they have now of securing citizenship for their children on consular registration. The only difference is that the result of the registration would be that the children became citizens of the British dependent territories by descent instead of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent.
Amendment No. 37 is merely consequential, to insert a reference to the new clause in clause 22, which defines who will become citizens of British dependent territories by descent. I commend the clause to the House.

Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I accept that the machinery provided here is necessary as a complement to the new clause that we have just passed, but it raises once again the question of the nature of citizenship of British dependent territories; that is to say, whether it is a single citizenship or whether it is 20 or so different citizenships, as described in schedule 6. When the United Kingdom Secretary of State registers someone who qualifies under the clause, does he register him as a citizen generally of British dependent territories, or as a citizen, say, of the Turks and Caicos Islands, as opposed to a citizen of the Virgin Islands?
The importance of this is that if he registers such a person in general terms as a citizen of British dependent territories, in spite of what has been said in previous proceedings on the Bill, my belief is that in international law if such a citizen gets into grave trouble a third country could deport him to any one of the 20 or so dependent territories listed in schedule 6.
If I am wrong about that, and if it is the intention of the United Kingdom Secretary of State that the citizen shall be restricted to one or other of those islands or dependencies in circumstances such as I have mentioned, is my hon. Friend satisfied that that is in accordance with the practices of international law, and that third countries would be wrong and illegal if they sent such a malefactor back to a dependent territory different from the one in which he is registered by the United Kingdom Secretary of State? It gives the United Kingdom Secretary of State the remarkable power of being able to allot to any one of those 20 or so islands exclusive rights of the person concerned. It looks far more like an independent citizenship than a single citizenship. Are not the Government seeking to have it both ways?

Mr. Luce: I suspect that this question marginally comes within the terms of reference of the clause. The whole question of composite citizenship for British dependent territories is a matter that we decided to introduce after a great deal of debate. The Green Paper did not recommend that, but we decided to introduce composite citizenship because we felt that dependent territories were in a special relationship with the United Kingdom and that it was right and proper to introduce a third type of citizenship, which is composite and applies to all the territories.
As my hon. and learned Friend implied, dependent territories have their own immigration ordinances and immigration rules. We have been in touch with all the


governors of these territories, and the objective is that these territories, with one major exception, should bring their ordinances into line with the general criteria on citizenship, so that immigration rules and citizenship laws should as far as possible be brought into line.
The Secretary of State's power can be delegated to the governor, so that governors in various dependencies will be able to deal with the problem of registration. I have no evidence to support the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend that there is here a breach of international law. If he wants a more detailed assessment of our obligations, in international law, to these dependencies and third countries, I shall be pleased to give him more details later on.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: This matter was not argued in Committee, and I should be interested in the answer.
Each colony will have its individual ordinances, but what is the position of a citizen of a dependent territory deported from France whose normal place of abode is the Turks and Caicos Islands and who is returned to Hong Kong? Is he to be admitted by Hong Kong in those circumstances because in international law it is part of the citizenship of dependent territories?

Mr. Luce: I hesitate to give a detailed answer when talking about international law and obligations. Obviously, I must get my facts right, and I have already assured my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that I will clarify the matter.
Under international law we have obligations to look after the interests of citizens of British dependent territories in relation to third countries. I cannot say how we would deal with the question of deportation, but I will write to my hon. and learned friend and to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). We have important obligations and they are not weakened by the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3

REGISTRATION AND NATURALISATION UNDER BRITISH NATIONALITY ACTS I948 TO I965.

`(1) After the passing of this Act—

(a) a person shall not be registered under any provision of the existing nationality Acts as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British subject; and
(b) a certificate of naturalisation shall not be granted to a person under any provision of those Acts,
unless—

(i) any fee payable by virtue of those Acts in connection with the registration or, as the case may be, the grant of the certificate has been paid; and
(ii) where applicable, the person in question has taken the oath of allegiance which, but for this section, he would have been required by those Acts to take in connection with the registration or as the case may be, the grant to him of the certificate.

(2) Any provision of the existing nationality Acts which provides for a person to be entitled to registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British subject shall have effect subject to subsection (1).

(3) A person registered after the passing of this Act under any provision of the existing nationality Acts as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British subject shall be such

a citizen by registration or, as the case may be, a British subject by virtue of that provision as from the date on which he is so registered; and a person to whom a certificate of naturalisation is after the passing of this Act granted under any such provision shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by naturalisation as from the date on which the certificate is granted.

(4) The following provisions of the existing nationality Acts, namely—

(a) in the 1948 Act, section 9 and, in section 10(1), the words from "and the person" onwards; and
(b) section 1(2) of the British Nationality Act 1965,
shall not apply in relation to any application for registration or for a certificate of naturalisation under any provision of the existing nationality Acts, whenever made, unless the person to whom that application relates has been registered or, as the case may be, granted such a certificate before the passing of this Act.

(5) In this section "the existing nationality Acts" means the British Nationality Acts 1948 to 1965.'—[Mr. Raison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendments Nos. 58 to 61 and. 63 to 65.

Mr. Raison: Taken with the various consequential amendments to clause 49 and schedules 8 and 9, the new clause seeks to simplify the current procedures for registration and naturalisation and will help to reduce some of the delays in dealing with applications for citizenship. It is envisaged that, unlike the other provisions of the Bill, these measures will come into force as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. They will, therefore, have an immediate impact and are framed in terms of alterations to the current nationality legislation.
The problem that the amendments seek to relieve is that, under present law, once a decision has been made to grant, for example, a certificate of naturalisation, it is necessary to write to the applicant on three separate occasions.
First, the applicant is asked to check the details that are to appear on his certificate of naturalisation, such as his name. He is also asked to send in his fee. The certificate is made out and signed on behalf of the Home Secretary. The applicant is approached a second time and asked to take the oath of allegiance before a solicitor or other authorised person. The oath of allegiance for applicants for naturalisation is printed on the back of the naturalisation certificate. The applicant returns that to the Home Office. His certificate is duly sealed, and the Home Office writes to him for the third and final time, with the certificate of naturalisation. He is a naturalised citizen from the time his certificate is signed, but that is conditional on his taking the oath of allegiance. Broadly similar procedures apply with most applicants for citizenship by registration. There is no discretion to simplify those procedures under existing legislation.
It would greatly help the flow of work if the second stage of the process—the request to the applicant to take the oath of allegiance—could be included in the first stage. Applicants could then be asked in one letter to check the details to appear on their certificate, send the fee and take the oath of allegiance. A time-taking stage in the process of naturalisation would be eliminated. That would simplify matters for the applicant, would save staff time and effort and would reduce some delays.
Under clause 39 we propose to adopt that system when the Bill comes into force, but it may be some little time before the Bill comes into force, since much preparation


has to be done. In the meantime, the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1948, as amended, will apply, and in their present form those do not permit any simplification of existing procedures. We think, however, that we ought not to wait until then before moving over to the new system for oaths of allegiance. There would be considerable advantage, we believe, in eliminating the second stage from the process of issuing certificates of naturalisation and registration as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Accordingly, we propose that, as from Royal Assent, the arrangements for acquiring citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by naturalisation and registration should be simplified in the way that I have described. As from then, we propose that applicants should pay the fee and take the oath of allegiance before they are naturalised or registered. Their naturalisation or registration will take effect, as at present, from the time that the registration is made or the certificate of naturalisation is granted, but it will no longer be dependent on their subsequently taking the oath of allegiance where that is required.
Anyone who has been granted naturalisation or registered before Royal Assent but has not then taken the oath of allegiance will still, in appropriate cases, have to do so, as a condition of naturalisation or registration, but thereafter the normal procedure will be that the applicant will be asked to take the oath of allegiance before he or she is naturalised or registered and will be asked to return the oath, duly attested, with the appropriate fee before the certificate of naturalisation is signed or the registration made.
We believe that the change will yield significant improvements in the processing of applications for naturalisation or registration, once those have been decided. In our view the improvements ought not to be delayed till the Bill as a whole comes into force, but should take effect as soon as it receives Royal Assent.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 4

RIGHT OF APPEAL

`(1) In any case arising under this Act where a person is refused a certificate of naturalisation as a British Citizen or, as a Citizen of the British Dependent Territories, or where an application for registration as a British Citizen or, as the case may be, as a Citizen of the British Dependent Territories or as a British Overseas Citizen is refused, an appeal shall lie against the decision of the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, of the Lieutenant-Governor or the Governor, to the Citizenship Appeal Tribunal established in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) For the purpose of hearing appeals under this Act, there shall be established a tribunal to be known as the Citizenship Appeal Tribunal.

(3) The Citizenship Appeal Tribunal shall consist of:

(a) such number of judges as may be nominated from time to time by the Lord Chancellor from among the judges (other than the Lord Chancellor) of the High Court and the Court of Appeal;
(b) at least one judge of the Court of Session nominated from time to time by the Lord President of that Court; and
(c) such number of other members as may be appointed from time to time by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.

(4) The Lord Chancellor shall, after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session, appoint one of the judges nominated under subsection (2) above to be President of the Appeal Tribunal.

(5) No judge shall be nominated a member of the Citizenship Appeal Tribunal except with his consent.

(6) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provisions for the membership, sittings, proceedings and powers of the Citizenship Appeal Tribunal..—[Mr. Hattersley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move. That the clause be read a Second time.
The object of the new clause is to provide an appeals system by which applicants for British citizenship by registration or naturalisation may, if their application is refused, contest that refusal.
In some ways the debate on the new clause typifies the divide between the Government and the Opposition over the entire Bill—a divide that can be more dramatically exemplified on other issues, but will certainly appear in the debate on the new clause, not least because the Opposition believe that a candidate for British citizenship who fulfills the requirements laid down by Parliament should have an automatic right to obtain that status.
In Committee, Conservative Members and the Minister of State explicitly described British citizenship by registration or naturalisation as a privilege which, as a matter of principle as well as a matter of, according to them, necessary administrative practice, should be withheld by the Home Secretary if he chose to use his discretion against the applicant.
I had hoped that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) would be here to entertain the House with his views on the subject, but unfortunately he is not with us. He said that his view, which he admitted was mystical rather than logical, was that possession by the Home Secretary of the right to reject an applicant for British citizenship, for whatever reason he chose—no matter how capricious, arbitrary or unrelated to the criteria laid down in the Bill—was a necessary condition of the statehood and nationhood of the United Kingdom.
In other words, unless the Home Secretary possessed the power, on behalf of the United Kingdom corporately and collectively, to dismiss an application for reasons that he need not justify, and perhaps could not explain, British nationhood would be undermined. I do not suggest that that bizarre notion was commonly held by Conservative Members, but I can demonstrate by reference toHansard of the Committee proceedings that the Government's view was that the right to withhold citizenship should be retained in the person of the Home Secretary.
I accept that Parliament has a right, indeed a duty, to stipulate which individuals who are not born within the United Kingdom are entitled subsequently to become United Kingdom citizens.
I believe also that there must be a clear definition of what qualifies such individuals for naturalisation or registration. Men and women who fulfil the requirements stipulated by the House should have the automatic right to citizenship. Equally important, applicants who believe that they fulfil the criteria and are entitled to citizenship according to the conditions stipulated by the House, but who are nevertheless refused an application for that status, should first be told in clear and unequivocal terms why their application has been refused. Then, if they contest the facts behind the refusal and the judgment that brought


it about, they should have the right to appeal against the decision that deprived them of the status for which they asked.
The right to appeal as proposed in the new clause is linked inextricably with the right of an applicant to know why his initial application has been turned down. If an applicant is not told what prevented his application for citizenship from succeeding, he cannot make an appeal either on fact or judgment. The Opposition argued in Committee that more precise criteria determining what did or did not justify a man—or woman—in his application to become British should be incorporated in the Bill. We failed in our attempts to include objective criteria for the granting of citizenship.
Schedule 1 to the Bill contains criteria of a sort, stipulating general conditions that have to be fulfilled if a man or woman is to become British—a residence qualification, a period of good conduct, a character in some way beyond reproach and a working knowledge of the English language. I have to tell the House that the implementation and interpretation of those criteria are open to a great deal of argument and judgment. The most subjective requirement of all is that an applicant should be of good conduct, of good character and above reproach. The Opposition argued in Committee that that, too, could be specified in a clear and objective manner. A man or woman who had not committed any one of a list of specified offences would, in our opinion, be someone who could claim to be of good conduct that justified the application of British citizenship.
The Government prefer to keep these things more general. In doing so they provide substantial risks for the applicant, particularly in relation to the good conduct requirement. The Minister of State described in Committee how the good conduct requirement is interpreted in the Home Office. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall read some of the things that he said, assuring you that I am not reading from the works of Beachcomber, but giving you a recital of the work of some Assistant Secretary in the Home Office, which the Minister of State read faithfully to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman said:
Perhaps I might give some indication of how the good character requirement is currently interpreted.
He gave some indication before going on to say:
Sexual morality, however, is not normally taken into account, nor are, for instance, homosexual activities within the law. Scandalous sexual misbehaviour might, however, when combined with other personal characteristics, be a factor in a very few cases".
In case that definition of immorality and unacceptable conduct was not sufficiently vacuous, he went on:
Financial irresponsibility, serious insolvency or bankruptcy invariably leads to refusal. But mere financial incompetence is not necessarily a bar, and neither is unemployment or receipt of social security benefits.
6.45 pm
The passage improves in a humurous sense as it goes along, concluding with this definition of what makes a man or woman suitable for British citizenship:
Defects of temperament on their own are not normally held to bar an applicant on grounds of character. Heavy drinking, gambling or a disinclination to work are not in themselves sufficient to warrant refusal. There comes a point in a very few cases, however, where failings of this type become so

pronounced, or notorious in the locality, that it would be unwise to grant naturalisation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 19 March 1981, c. 692.]
I have read those paragraphs, not in order to reflect on the Minister's attitude to these matters, but to demonstrate the subjectivity of the rules that govern a man's or a woman's application for citizenship. A man or a woman may be denied British citizenship if it comes to the point where failings are so pronounced or notorious in the locality that it would be unwise to grant naturalisation. That single sentence contains three or four subjective judgments, none of which the applicant is allowed to test or to appeal against, and none of which will be made known to the applicant if used as a reason for denying the status of British citizenship.
It seems wrong that a man or a woman who, according to the Bill, and according to the schedule to the Bill, is entitled to be British, should be prevented from being British by rules that are, and are clearly interpreted in a way that is, so arbitrary, so subjective and, I must use the word again, so vacuous. In our view, the judgments should be made in a way that can be challenged, in that they are described in material and practical terms, and, secondly a challenge should be possible. There is no way in which a challenge to a refusal of British citizenship can be mounted under he Bill as it stands.
Clause 41(1), as amended in Committee, contains a welcome addition. It is an amendment that the Opposition wholly applaud. It improves substantially both the character and tone of the Bill. Clause 41(1) requires the Secretary of State, a governor or a lieutenant-governor, when deciding whether a man or a woman can become British, or may be prevented from becoming British, to make his judgment with a mind wholly unclouded by racial, religious or other prejudicial, in terms of race, colour and creed, qualifications. That is good. It is an admirable addition to the Bill. However, as I said in Committee, the fact that the Minister, properly and admirably, added the amendment disqualifying the Secretary of State from making a judgment about citizenship that was prejudiced according to race or colour is a dramatic demonstration of the wide discretion of the Secretary of State. That is the only limitation placed upon the exercise of his judgment.
Clause 41(2), as amended, says:
The Secretary of State, a Governor or a Lieutenant-Governor…shall not be required to assign any reason for the grant or refusal of any application under this Act the decision on which is at his discretion",
and it goes on to say that any such decision to grant or deny citizenship
shall not be subject to appeal to, or review in, any court.
The fact that the Secretary of State has that enormous power over the future prospects, prosperity and happiness of a man or woman, and the fact that the Bill does not require him to justify his decision, which cannot be checked, examined or challenged in any court, seems wrong in principle and wrong in practice. It is wrong in itself. A crucial decision about the future of a man or a woman, and therefore about the future of the family of that man or woman, should be taken in a way that does not deny the man or the woman knowledge of the reasons why the decision has gone against him or her and the right to argue about the facts on which the decision was based.
I should like to remind the House of what happens in practice in the real world of applications for British citizenship. A man or a woman believes that he or she is


entitled to British citizenship under what will now, if the Bill becomes law, be the terms of schedule 1 to the Act. Let me give an example. I take only two or three of the qualifications. A man—and this applies also to a woman—believes that he is of good character. He knows that he has lived in the United Kingdom for the requisite period. He believes himself to have sufficient knowledge of the Welsh or English language. He does not know how good character is defined. He can read the Minister of State's speech, but that will not give him a precise definition, and he can look at the schedule, which describes good character in general terms. Nor does he know the level of English—or, for that matter, Welsh—that he needs to qualify for British citizenship. All that he knows is that somehow he must achieve a status and a quality of performance which is not described for him, but which the Minister or the Minister's representative will judge.
Many applications are turned down. When that happens the applicants receive a circular letter telling them that it is not the practice of the Home Secretary or the Home Office to say why the application has been refused. I am not the first Member of Parliament to stand on the rights and privileges that we have, but it is worth considering that when we are asked by an unsuccessful applicant to pursue the case with the Home Office we are given the same reply, namely, that it is not the practice of the Home Secretary to reveal the reasons why an application for British citizenship has been rejected.
This potentially disastrous news is received in a way that makes it almost impossible for the individual to accommodate the disadvantages that the Home Secretary has found in him. The applicant will know—or think that he knows—whether he has lived here for five years, but he has no idea of the standard of English that is required. In practice it involves a subjective judgment by the police officer who visits the applicant at his home and decides whether the person is able to carry on an adequate conversation in English.
The applicant will not know how moral failings may have affected the application—whether those failings are so pronounced and notorious in his locality that it would be unwise to grant him nationality. Perhaps more important, he will not know whether he is right to suspect that people have described him as that without justification, but that is the rumour that is put around about him. That is the concept of the man's behaviour, character and history that is offered to the Home Office by malicious neighbours. The man has no way of challenging that, or arguing with the facts of the judgment.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that what he says is all the more pertinent, because groups of people who now have the right to confer citizenship—namely, husbands of foreign born wives—will be brought into the net for the first time if the Bill becomes law? The kind of salicious comments that my right hon. Friend mentions can place an additional intolerable strain on many marriages.

Mr. Hattersley: That is true. We all know people in ethnic minorities who have been penalised by things that have been said about them by their neighbours or by people with whom they have had a dispute, as a result of which applications to remain here have been refused or extradition has been required. I fear that such a process will proliferate under the extensions of the Bill.
Confusions arise—understandably—between two Mr. Singhs and two Mr. Khans. I have done it myself. I shall not ask the Minister of State how often that happens, but I am sure that it happens often. There should be an obligation on the Home Secretary to prove that such errors do not occur if the offended person, or the person who believes that he has been offended, wants to make an application saying that the Home Secretary's judgment was wrong in fact or in opinion.
The inadequacy of such a subjective set of rules, judged by the Home Secretary's representative, was conceded by Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) spoke in Committee of an applicant who might say that he had been treated unfairly, because he contended his English was pretty good. That, cried the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), thinking that he was scoring a point, was a matter of opinion.
Our case rests on our belief that matters of opinion ought not to determine the future of an individual or family. It should be determined in a manner that is more scientific, objective and legal.
In refutation of that, I am sure that the Minister of State will say, as he did in Committee, that the system has worked well in the past and that the alternative that we propose offers a number of substantial difficulties, some involving administration and some involving security. I shall deal briefly with those matters.
We have no idea how well the system worked in the past. We criticise the nature of a system under which there is no way of checking how well it operated in previous years. We have no idea of how many people who should have obtained British nationality were refused it, how many factual errors were made, or of how many of the judgments of Home Office officials would have been overturned had they been scrutinised by a court or tribunal. All that we know is that the Minister told us in Committee on 12 May that in 1980 there were 1,199 refused applications. He said that 249 were for character requirements, 190 for language failures, 483 for failures to fulfil the statutory residence requirements, and 264 were because, in the judgment of the Home Office, the applicant did not intend to fulfil future residence requirements—another subjective judgment which, in my view, was so indecisive as to be intolerable. The Minister of State said that 15 applications had been rejected for other reasons.
I later added up the Minister of State's figures and discovered that they came to 1,201, so two items were missing. I shall be charitable and not attribute those two items to his arithmetic. They are probably two security cases that he did not put in any of the categories. I shall come to security cases in a moment.
The Minister misunderstands the situation if he says that the present system is satisfactory simply because 1,199 refusals did not result in massive publicity, massive condemnation, massive dispute and massive disagreement. I do not believe that there is a Member of Parliament—certainly on these Benches—who has not applied for British citizenship on behalf of a constituent, found it refused, believed that the refusal was unreasonable, and witnessed the suffering, hardship and uncertainty that resulted from that refusal. Simply to say "Last year we managed 1,200, what are you complaining about?" does not meet the position; nor does an answer about the fears concerning consequent problems affecting security.
I made a proposal in Committee. If the Secretary of State wished to deny citizenship to a man or woman because in the opinion of those who advised him to grant citizenship would be a security risk to the United Kingdom, no one in his right mind would want the Secretary of State to be forced to justify that contention before a court or tribunal. I proposed that the Secretary of State should have the right to issue a warrant, saying that the refusal was for security reasons and that therefore there should be no appeal or examination of the case. In some cases, perhaps, the Secretary of State's information would be inadequate and the refusal unjustified, but I am prepared to risk that, in the interests of security.
The only possible security risk that can come from my scheme is that which the Minister described. He said that to say that a man had been refused British citizenship because of his security classification would alert him to suspicions about himself. That is such a far-fetched risk that I am prepared to accept it in the interests of a proper and objective appeals system. I understand the security implications, but, with the proper will, the Home Secretary could overcome the problems.
7. pm
My right hon. and hon. Friends accept that a man or woman who is denied citizenship should know why it has been denied, have the opportunity to argue against the decision and the right to challenge the facts and the Home Secretary's judgment of the facts.
Other matters arise from the Committee's considerations. The Minister said in Committee that the problem was not as great as we described because the rights lost through the withdrawal or refusal of citizenship were not as great as we tried to make out. He said that
for most people these matters do not impinge on their everyday lives, at least to the extent of, for example, immigration matters"—[Official Report, Standing Committee F; 12 May 1981, c. 1964.]
People who have the right of abode in Britain do not have to have a stamp in their passport, nor do they have qualifications in relation to their stay. They can remain here without assuming British citizenship through naturalisation or registration. However, a man or woman applying for naturalisation or registration might be doing so to obtain rights which he or she regards as fundamental to existence in the United Kingdom. A job might be at stake. More important, at a time of insecurity among the ethnic minorities, the feeling of confidence in the country in which a person has chosen to live might be deeply undermined if he is told that he is not entitled to the full rights of citizenship and is not told why the right is denied.
To say that the rights of citizenship do not impinge on everyday lives, at least to the extent of the immigration laws, is to deny the fundamental policy of citizenship as described in the Bill. The Government told us time after time in Committee, on Second Reading and outside, of the importance of British nationality being clearly defined, clearly understood and properly respected. If British nationality is that important—and I believe it to be—the House has a duty to protect the people who are entitled to British nationality under the Bill but fear that that right will be denied them. To fail to do that is to deny elementary justice.
That denial might relate to 1,199 people, 99 people or even half a dozen. Whatever the number, the right to know

why an application has been refused and the right to appeal against that refusal are essential in principle and in practice. If the Home Secretary cannot move towards that this evening, we shall divide the House on principle and practice.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend and his new clause. We discussed these matters at length in Committee. My right hon. Friend conceded that the new clause does not provide the full package required for a reasonable appeals system for registration and naturalisation cases. The right to appeal gives little if one does not know what one is appealing about. A case cannot be presented properly. An applicant would be able to say only "I applied. I think that I am entitled under schedule 1 but I do not know why I have been refused." The Home Office would then have to explain why the refusal was justified.
The new clause must be considered with an amendment to the schedule. In the Chair's wisdom it has not been selected for discussion tonight, but it may be discussed on Thursday. The two propositions are linked. I hope that the Home Secretary will not reply to my right hon. Friend's submission by arguing that a major ingredient has been left out. It has not. If the Home Secretary is persuaded by our arguments he will appreciate that our proposals represent one way of tackling the problem.
In Committee the Minister argued that the system had worked well since 1914 in naturalisation cases and since 1973 in registration cases. He misunderstands the argument. The system has worked well because nobody who has been refused has understood why. Nobody could kick up a storm. If people had known there would have been a regular storm about some decisions.
I do not wish to repeat the stories of cases referred to in Committee, but one case turned my view. I refer to the case of Albie Sachs. A man's privations and experiences in a South African gaol are now part of the repertory of the English National Theatre—and the Home Secretary might take his wife there to watch the Albie Sachs play as part of the tribute that we pay to that man. He would have been refused citizenship if I had accepted the recommendations of officials. I refer not only to officials at assistant secretary level but to the personal endorsement of the permanent secretary in the Home Office. That case shows that there is something wrong with our system. If the case had been aired in the press and everybody had known the arguments many people who have seen the play and been deeply moved by it would be furious that that man might have been refused citizenship. There are many similar cases.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is not in the Chamber, because I remember well his case involving the English language. He described in Committee a constituent of Polish culture who was unable to express himself to a Scottish policeman. However, the man was able to express himself in the company of people in London. He was refused citizenship because a Scottish policeman did not understand his Polish accent. Such a case would discredit the present structure of applying for naturalisation if it were widely known. As far as I know, none of those cases has been previously discussed in public because no one, except me, is unwise enough to do so. There are many


cases that, were the realities known, would lead to a discrediting of the system. It is wrong to continue with that system.
Because of the Albie Sachs case I reached the view that we must have objective criteria. I am willing to accept that the definition of such criteria may be difficult. The proposals put in Committee, and the later amendment that may yet be discussed, may not be fully adequate, but it is not beyond the wit of man to define an objective criteria. It would be a vast improvement on the present position. If, in the course of time, such criteria were felt to be defective in some way, they could be amended. At least the system would be in the open. It would be subject to appeal. Someone else, apart from Home Office civil servants or Ministers, could apply his mind to the question "Is that a man whom we want as a British citizen?". I do not say that those who do such work at the Home Office are malign or in any way insensitive to the feelings of the applicant. The real issue is the judgment about whom we want as British citizens.
Some of the Minister's remarks were typical of the attitudes reflected by officials in such cases. They say that it is true that a man has not yet been made bankrupt and has not yet committed a crime, but that he is so near to it, or is in such deep financial difficulties, that there is a possibility that after he has been granted citizenship he will become a cause celebre or a newspaper case, and people will say that we have discredited Britain because we allowed that man to become a citizen.
I well understand the sense of public responsibility that dictates such an attitude, but the question whether the public would regard that as being an acceptable case should not be decided by civil servants or even by Home Office Ministers. It should be decided by the general feeling of the community at large. The issues about homosexuality and sexual behaviour would have been decided differently 10 or 15 years ago by public opinion. They are still being decided by officials who have had handed down to them a tradition of making decisions about such behaviour—a tradition that they continue to incorporate in their decision making although it is not necessarily the pattern of current public opinion. Such matters are best dealt with by an appeal to an objective panel—perhaps judges or adjudicators—who, because the decision takes place in public, can better reflect current public opinion.
The issue is vital in determining whether what we achieve by the Bill is acceptable to the public at large. The Minister said that there had not been many complaints, but many more people will now be applying for citizenship than in the past. Because of the Government's decision to take away the right to register automatically for those who entered Britain before 1 January 1973, many more will have to go through the test. The Government have decided that women will not be granted citizenship automatically on marriage. Therefore, all women will have to go through the test. Many more will have to go through that barrier.
7.15 pm
Many people may, for one reason or another, be thought not to be of good character. I am still not sure whether the Home Office regards it as not being of good character if one has in some way misled the immigration officials about one's status in a way that is now accepted by the courts as being fraud or deceit. For example, one

may not have said something to an official, even when not asked the question, which had the official known about he would have regarded as material to the application.
Nobody in his right mind, apart from the judges in the High Court, think that that is fraud. But the judges think that it is fraud and therefore it is the law. It is considered by Home Office officials to be fraud. If it is regarded as fraud, presumably it invalidates any application for citizenship. I assume that the Home Office will revoke citizenship, even after it has been granted, if it thinks that it was obtained by fraud. If that is so, it will cause immense difficulties for some of those who entered Britain in the 1960s and 1970s, when procedures at the ports were rather different from what they are today.
People will have thrown at them things that they said or did not say, or half said, 20 years ago, as part of the apparatus of deciding whether they are British citizens. That was not the case in the 1950s and 1960s, when they applied for naturalisation. No one had to go through that sort of scrutiny. But people will have to do so now, especially the new Commonwealth immigrants who entered Britain in the 1960s and 1970s. If that is the position it is untrue to say that we are perpetuating what has gone before. We are perpetuating something that will have a much deeper bite on a wider section of the community and that will cause a great deal more concern than was caused in the past by naturalisation. For that reason, above all others, we should try to achieve some system of appeal such as that indicated in the Bill.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I want to say briefly why I regard the new clause as radically misconceived. There is no such thing, and cannot be such a thing, as a right to be naturalised. I say that in two senses—in the light of the Bill and upon more general considerations.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) inadvertently referred to a person entitled to naturalisation under schedule 1. Of course, schedule 1 does nothing of the sort, It sets out requirements that must be fulfilled in the opinion of the Secretary of State. It does not say that a person who fulfils the following conditions shall be entitled. In terms of the drafting of the Bill some of us, more than others, are familiar with the parts that include the word "entitlement", and where the Bill is stating or creating a right. In the case of naturalisation, the Bill does not do that.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not go far enough. He said that we cannot have the new clause unless we have much more precise definitions and also a requirement for disclosure. I go further. We cannot have the new clause unless we redraft the Bill to write into it a justiciable right to naturalisation. If we were to set to work to do that we should discover that we were attempting something that was inherently contradictory.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, that there are some cases where persons will in future look to naturalisation where I would have wished to see a right written into the Bill. It is not my fault that those who are married to British citizens do not have a right, by right of their marriage, to be British citizens. In general the Bill does not, and cannot, create a right to naturalisation. The essence of naturalisation is that persons who do not belong are accepted as for the future belonging in the full sense to the community. It would be inconceivable that we should have a law under which those who do not belong can say "We


have a right to belong". That is an inherent contradiction of the definition and nature of citizenship, namely, that those who do not possess it can have a right to it.
The Bill could not create a right to naturalisation, but the clause is placing discretion in the hands of a tribunal. It is not even placing discretion in the hands of one of the normal courts. It is creating a special tribunal and is providing that the decision shall be made by that tribunal. I know that in the form of the clause this is an appeal. However, if there is an appeal in these circumstances, does not the House suppose that it will become normal form to say "Let us try it on with the appeal"?
In effect, the clause is seeking to vest an executive decision—it is vesting a grant of a privilege, not the admission, definition or attribution of a right—to grant a privilege on behalf of the community not in the Executive but in a tribunal. The consequences of that are serious.
The essence of our constitution is that the discretionary acts of Government are performed by responsible Ministers, who can be called to account in the House. I know that few cases of the refusal of naturalisation come on to the Floor of the House, though many come potentially to the Floor of the House in that they become matters of correspondence, discussion and debate between hon. Members and Ministers. There would be little use in hon. Members carrying on correspondence with Ministers if, behind that correspondence, there was not the possibility of claiming the attention and the opinion of the House if the matter seemed to it of sufficient importance, and if we did not believe that the Executive's power was being properly exercised. I repeat that it is of the essence of our constitution that where acts of a discretionary character are taken by Government, their execution is vested in Ministers who are responsible to Parliament.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: How does one raise such an issue on the Floor of the House or through the Parliamentary Commissioner if the Minister's answer is always the same, namely "We are not bound to give reasons and we do not propose to give them".

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman cited an example where in his opinion it would have been scandalous if naturalisation had been refused. I shall assume that at that moment the hon. Gentleman was not in office but out of office. I do not believe that it would have been beyond the ingenuity or determination of the hon. Gentleman to secure a debate in the House on the subject and to raise the matter. It is a matter perfectly capable of being properly raised within the scope of the rules of order. The issue would be the method in which a Minister had exercised a discretion accorded to him under an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Powell: Yes. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the debate.

Mr. Davis: Is not this theoretical? The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that one can raise such a matter at Question Time or make it the subject of an Adjournment debate. The Minister's response will undoubtedly be the same, namely, that alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon). How can one expose a failure on the part of a Minister to apply his mind properly when the Minister hides behind such a response?

Mr. Powell: I have known case after case—I am sure that such has occurred in the time of the hon. Gentleman—where what has begun as an individual case has become a parliamentary occasion. Such matters have sometimes led to the resignation of the Minister concerned. Crichel Down began as an individual case. It was an act of administrative judgment. It ended in the resignation of a Cabinet Minister. It is absurd to dismiss my argument as theoretical.
I agree that our constitutional rights and practices are matters of theory, but the fact that they may be stated in theoretical terms is not to say that we cannot exercise them extremely effectively in the House.
The clause is asking the House to transfer responsibility for discretionary executive acts of Government from itself to a specially created tribunal. That is contrary to our constitutional practice it is contrary to the functions and duties of the House and it rests upon radical confusion. I hope that the House will not accept the new clause.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made a most extraordinary speech. There are many examples of executive discretion being subject to a tribunal. For example, if a supplementary benefit officer, using his executive discretion, refuses to grant someone a form of supplementary benefit, there may be an appeal to an appeals tribunal. That is a practice that is well established throughout a range of activity in our Government machinery. That has been the position for many years. The new clause seeks to create nothing new.
This is an important new clause but there are one or two other factors to consider. First, the applicant should be given the reasons for refusal except in certain limited cases that involve security.
One of my constituents had been applying for many years for naturalisation. Each year he had been refused without any reason being given. He eventually came to see me. I wrote to the Minister—this was at the time of the previous Labour Government—and I received exactly the same answer. The letter stated: "We regret that we are unable to grant naturalisation to this citizen. It is not our practice to give reasons." I wrote again and asked the Minister whether he would give me the reason on the understanding that I as a Member of Parliament would undertake to keep it confidential. I received a blank refusal. However, a sentence towards the end of the letter suggested that I should advise my constituent to apply again in two years' time. I do not know whether that was meant to give me a hint of the reason for the refusal of naturalisation.
I took up the matter with my constituent and went through all the likely reasons involving character—for example, whether he had been adjudged bankrupt or whether he had committed any criminal offences. We even discussed driving offences. I told him that he should apply in two years' time. He asked me what he should do in the intervening two years. He asked "How do I change my life so that I shall be a suitable candidate in two years for naturalisation if I am not a suitable candidate now?" I could not answer that question and I do not think that it could be answered by anyone else. In such circumstances the system becomes ridiculous.
In cases of refusal the reasons should be given so that the applicants have the chance to refute them. It is necessary to have a second stage—some form of appeal


tribunal. I do not know whether the tribunal that is proposed in the new clause is exactly the right one—better brains than mine have formulated the clause—but there should be some appeal procedure.
The difficulty with ministerial discretion is that it is not necessarily consistent. I presume that when an individual case is sent to the Minister, a civil servant will present a brief to the Minister to help him to come to a decision. I sometimes wonder whether that brief is exactly the same in all cases. I suspect that much depends on which Minister is in office or which Government are in power. I have noticed a different attitude towards ministerial discretion under the present Government than under the previous Government.
Many Members of Parliament will have noticed that a much harder line on discretion has been taken by the present Minister than by some of his predecessors. I do not need to mention the disgraceful case of Mohammed Sadiq, with which the Minister of State will be familiar. It must forever be a blot on the conscience of the Home Office. That is just one example; there are many others.
7.30 pm
There are many cases today in which the present Minister has refused discretion, but I could almost guarantee that under some previous Ministers that discretion would have been granted. Does that mean that one Minister is more willing to override the advice that is given by civil servants? Does it mean that the civil servants' advice is slanted because they know the tendencies of the Minister? It boils down to the fact that the question of discretion is so subjective as to be utterly meaningless.
Therefore, we need some objectivity. That can be brought about by giving the reasons for a refusal and by an appeal against those reasons.

Mr. Edward Lyons: It has been said that what distinguishes us in our constitution, unwritten though it is, is the fact that we have a number of recourses against acts of the Executive which appear oppressive. We can go to Parliament, to the media and to an independent judiciary.
The proposal in clause 41 is to exclude entirely, for the people living in this country, any right of appeal to the courts. That is something which one expects to find in a totalitarian regime. One finds it in countries such as South Africa, where legislation expressly excludes recourse to the courts for persons living in that country in certain situations.
I hope that no Government would enable a situation to arise in this country in which no one can go to the courts and the courts are thrust to one side. That happens in clause 41. There is no right of appeal. More than that, the clause goes out of its way to say that there shall be no judicial review. What does that mean? It means that administrative law is also excluded from the Bill. That is to say that there can be no application to the divisional court to see whether the processes by which the Home Office reaches a decision accord with the rules of natural justice and whether the criteria which are being applied are proper.
It is in that context that one considers the concession that the Government made, late in the Committee stage, when they inserted as clause 41(1) the declaration that any discretion vested under the Act by the Secretary of State or his surrogates.

shall be exercised without regard to…race, colour or religion".
That sounds very grand but when one reads directly after that that there shall be no appeal or even a review against any decision of the Home Office and that one should not know what the reason for refusal is, how on earth can clause 41(1) be meaningful? There is no means of knowing whether the officials acting under the Secretary of State are or are not having regard to race, colour or religion. Unless one can know how that decision is reached as a general rule, what possible method is there of checking that clause 41(1) is being observed?
It is essential to give meaning to clause 41(1). There should be a right of review of decisions. We do not have it. I believe that the Government are determined not to give it and came to the conclusion that they should insert the words about not having regard to race, colour or religion only because they knew that they could carry this provision, which denies all access to any tribunal in relation to any decision which is arrived at by the Home Office.
We know that the Minister of State is in charge. We perhaps know who the civil servants are. However, in 20 years' time when there is a different Minister, who may have different views, and other civil servants, who may not even tell the Minister how they have altered the criteria by which they are judging the applications, there will be no means of checking what is going on.
It is not satisfactory to say that a Member of Parliament can write to a Minister. Everything depends on the Minister. He may be overburdened with work and may take a narrow view. He may take a different view from his predecessor. The Member of Parliament may not like the person who is approaching him for help. He may say that he will not raise the matter and that he will not help that person. If one has recourse to the courts, that is a right: to go to the courts. It does not matter whether the solicitor likes the person concerned; his duty is to take the matter further and to give his best advice, admittedly for a fee. A Member of Parliament has no obligation to take up a case for a constituent. Every hon. Member knows that Members of Parliament take up a case in different ways. It is wrong that the rights of a person in this fundamental area should be defined by the personality, views and capacity of his current Member of Parliament.
Therefore, one must object to the absence of any right of appeal. It is not as if the criteria in schedule 1 for naturalisation are simply factual criteria. Good character is a matter of opinion. Residence, curiously enough, is often a matter of opinion because one civil servant may believe that if an applicant has been out of the country for a year in the last five, he is disqualified because he has not been resident for the previous five years. Another civil servant may take a different view and say that he draws the line at 15 months and that, if the applicant has been out of the country for only 12 months, he can go through. It is a matter of opinion. The question where the man intends to live in future is a matter of opinion. Different people may form different opinions about the applicant's intentions. When the opinion of the Minister and his underlings is of such crucial significance, it is more important than ever to have a right of appeal.
There are various ways of setting up an appeals procedure. New clause 4, proposed by the official Opposition, is one way. Another way is to use the same procedure which we have for immigration appeals, to go


to an adjudicator and from an adjudicator to an appeal tribunal. That is happening now. That is the substance of new clause 12, which has been tabled on behalf of the Social Democratic Party, but has not been selected. Whatever the system of appeal, there should be a system of appeal in the first place. When there is a Division on new clause 4, as we have been promised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), that new clause should be supported by all members of the Opposition and by anyone in the House who values the judiciary as an additional check on the powers of the Executive.
Government Members often say that official Opposition Members are always denigrating the judiciary, but to take away recourse to the judiciary is a fundamental attack on its power. The judiciary would not shrink from accepting responsibility for appeal and judicial review of ministerial decisions. It is said that in this area it is wrong to set up a judicial decision against a Government decision, but that is not correct. If an appeal system is to function properly, the Government must give the reason for refusal. If they say that it is that residence requirements have not been satisfied, but the applicant disagrees, by giving that as the sole reason for refusal the Government enable the matter to be reviewed by a judicial tribunal. They would not be hiding the reasons for refusal. Because of security, the Government may at times feel it unwise to give reasons, but generally there is no reason why they should not when the refusal is on the grounds of residence, intention of future residence or language.
In effect, the Minister's decision on the grounds of language is simply on the recommendation of a police officer. That is the ministerial decision. A police officer visits a house, and, often by reference to his own education and ability to speak English, decides whether the applicant speaks it well enough. He makes a report on which the Minister acts. The civil servants or the Minister have not listened to the applicant. The ministerial discretion is, in fact, the discretion of a police officer, on which the Minister puts a rubber stamp. If the decision on citizenship is to be made by one police officer, the need for appeal is even more important.
In 1980, 190 refusals were based on inadequacy of ability to speak English. The number will increase. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) pointed out that the Bill will compel foreign and Commonwealth wives to apply for naturalisation or registration and to pass a language test. That will prevent many wives from obtaining British citizenship, as they will not be able to pass the test. With an increasing number of refusals on the ground of language, and the decision often being made, in effect, by a police officer, the need for an appeal system grows ever stronger.
I hope that the debate will be seen as dealing with civil liberties, to sustain the right of every citizen and non-citizen resident in and subject to the law of the country to go to the courts for redress. Whatever the 1948 Act states, we should take the opportunity to strike a blow to strengthen the rights of individual citizens and residents to go to the courts.
7.45 pm
Clause I is relevant to the appeal procedure, since it removes the right of every child born here to be British.

If a child's parents are not British but are settled here, he can be British. Many applications for citizenship may be refused. The applicant may believe that one parent was settled here at the time of birth but the Home Office may not. How can the matter be resolved by an independent tribunal if there is no right of appeal? That is an additional reason for an appeal system.
The Government should give effect to clause 41(1), which states that there should be no discrimination on grounds of race, colour or creed, by allowing decisions to be reviewed. From the figures given by the Minister, it is obvious that more than 75 per cent. of the refusals in 1980 were based on residence and language and not on good character, which may involve security. At least in those cases, the Government should give reasons for refusing and allow a right of appeal. I hope that they will reconsider.

Mr. David Crouch: I listened with great interest to the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons). He addressed us with knowledge and passion. He is a lawyer, and knows what he is talking about, and he feels what he says. However, I do not agree with him about human rights. There should be a right of appeal, but, strangely, I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that naturalisation is not a right but an opportunity and privilege. There is no human right to naturalisation.
Strangely, sometimes our opinions change as a debate progresses. When I listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), for the first 20 minutes I could not disagree with him. The title of the new clause, "Right of Appeal", is such that no one could oppose it. It is a right that should exist for everyone, whatever his nationality or position, here or elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman was persuasive, and I was inclined to believe that we should not leave the matter to the subjective decision of the Secretary of State, advised, also subjectively, by his officials.
However, as I listened to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) argue learnedly and cogently why we must have the right of appeal, I realised that we need yet another amendment. The new clause, combined with schedule 1, would not be enough, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted. If ever a schedule was full of generalities, schedule 1 is. Who determines what is good character? A lawyer or a judge cannot determine it better than I, the Home Secretary or his officials. What is a sufficient—that is a strange word for lawyers—knowledge of the language? That description is not enough.
I speak as an amateur, from the legal aspect, although not in the context of meeting people seeking naturalisation. As has been said, we all have to respond to constituents seeking help with naturalisation papers. When the point was raised by other hon. Members, I began to consider the case of a constituent, who may already have one or two references from people who he worked with, asking for help and a reference.
Such a case arose in my constituency recently. An Indian citizen seeking nationalisation came to me for assistance. He was a milkman, known to many people, and had many references to prove his good character. He had a reference from the local parson. In due course, willingly, not as an amateur, but as a Member of Parliament knowledgeable of my constituent because of the references I had seen, I wrote to the Minister of State strongly backing


up the application. I do not yet know the answer, but I wonder whether my support for my constituent influenced the subjective judgment of the officials in the Home Office and finally the subjective judgment of Ministers. I hear one of my hon. Friends say "Not a chance", but how do we know? Nobody has told us today. We do not know.

Mr. Cyril Smith: The Minister may be able to make a proper judgment on matters such as character, but what about language? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whereas somebody appearing in person before a tribunal could convince or fail to convince the tribunal that he had a sufficient knowledge of the language, that right does not apply if the Minister takes the decision?

Mr. Crouch: I am about to become more liberal. I confess to the hon. Gentleman that that is a point upon which I stumble. If it is true that a policeman knocking on the door determines the essential element in a person's requirement to become naturalised, I am not happy about that. I leave that comment in the air, to descend where I hope that it will descend, namely, on the Government Front Bench.
As I promised, I shall now be liberal in my thoughts. Up to now, I must have sounded over-reactionary in a way that is not normal for me, but I was reacting to the debate. My liberal thought on the matter is this. Let us suppose that we followed the right hon. Gentleman's advice and accepted the new clause. There is nothing wrong with the drafting. It is what it ultimately implies that worries me. It implies an exact specification, written down in yet another new clause about good character, sufficient knowledge of the language, and many other aspects.
All this will have to be spelt out. I can see the lawyers and draftsmen getting involved in spelling this out in great detail, such as only an Army staff officer could imagine. I am being very considerate to ordinary civil servants in that comment. I can then envisage officials deciding that before they go to the Minister of State or the Secretary of State they must be doubly careful to dot their i's and cross their t's, and that they must be very careful about recommending anything, because the new clause will operate and the matter will go to a tribunal. They will say, "We must not be found to have shown any discretion or to have been liberal in our recommendations to the Minister." They will believe that they must be accurate to the letter and not so much to the spirit of the law.
As is only gracious, as the hon. Member for Canterbury, I shall give way to the hon. Member for York. Before doing so, however, I must point out that I am an amateur in this. I am not good enough to argue the legal niceties of the matter, but I can understand the common sense of it. I can see that we would rob the officals, and certainly the Secretary of State, of all discretion in the matter. I do not know how they use their discretion, but I think that we might rob them of it. Therefore, I think that it might be better to leave things as they are and to trust successive Home Secretaries to use their judgment in this matter. Is that so wrong?

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: From the equal province of York, I would first say to the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in the provisions that we suggest that would stop the Home Secretary being liberal. Under any proposal that we put forward, he is free to grant citizenship. Nobody will appeal against that. It is only an appeal against refusal

that is required. If Home Office officals are running around saying that they want to be liberal, there is nothing to stop them. Nobody will question that. This is specifically set out in the amendment to which I referred in relation to schedule I.

Mr. Crouch: I understand the hon. Gentleman. I am simply concerned that once we spell these matters out, dotting the i's and crossing the t's, people will stumble on a particular hurdle that they cannot get over no matter how liberal the Home Secretary is or how much discretion his officials wish to give him, because those people will not be able to meet the exact definition of what determines whether they have the right—if right it be—to be granted naturalisation papers.
I would therefore leave it to the discretion of the Home Secretary. I would also leave this debate, which will continue yet, not to be altogether forgotten when the Bill becomes an Act, so that when the procedures are worked in the future Parliament will continue to be concerned about the matter. As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, it is not just the tribunal to which people go. Ultimately, this place is a tribunal. People can go to their Member of Parliament and have the matter raised here, not just in a letter but in an Adjournment debate, of under Standing Order No. 9. A great protest can be raised. It has happened on other matters. To suggest, as hon. Members have, that this does not and cannot happen is to be blinkered about their real opportunities to serve their constituents.
Therefore, albeit having listened to the wise arguments explaining why it should be otherwise, I should prefer to leave this matter to the discretion of the Ministers.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I support new clause 4 because I believe, first, that the Bill creates new forms of citizenship and that new procedures are therefore necessary to deal with new situations.
I accept entirely that there has not been a great deal of fuss in the past about refusal of British citizenship or naturalisation, but it is difficult to kick up a fuss about something when one does not know the facts. As has been pointed out, if one writes to the Home Secretary challenging a decision, he simply writes back saying that he is not at liberty to disclose his reasons, nor indeed is he required to do so under the existing law, and so on. I accept that that is his right at present, but in that situation it is very difficult to argue a case.
I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) because a case was brought to me last year in which I think that the man involved was refused on the grounds of language. When I met and spoke to him, I could not believe that his case had been refused on the basis of inadequate knowledge of the language. It could only have been with regard to the written word, as he certainly spoke the language fluently. I could only assume, therefore, that he had been subjected to some kind of written test. But it is very difficult to argue a case when the Home Office will not say that that was the reason, although one may suspect the grounds by reading between the lines of the reply, and so on.
I should have thought that this was only common justice. Like the hon. Member for Canterbury, I am not a lawyer. I cannot argue the niceties of the law like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) or the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), but I know that, now


and in future, one person will have the discretion to decide whether another human being should be given citizenship, and that that human being will have no right of appeal against the Minister's decision.
8 pm
I have heard all the arguments about how the matter can be dealt with on the Floor of the House. They are theoretical arguments, which are not supported by practice. An hon. Member would have to have grounds for bringing a case to the attention of the House. As has been said, that is specifically precluded by the Bill. The Minister does not have to give grounds. Even if an hon. Member had grounds, my experience is that he would have a difficult task if he sought to argue an individual case.
There is nothing new about tribunals that can challenge the decisions of Ministers. There is nothing new about constituents having the right to challenge Ministers' decisions before a tribunal. In immigration cases, that happens all the time. The Minister may refuse a person the right of admission, the right to settle here, or an extension of stay. When that happens, people appeal to tribunals. For example, there may be a dispute about the right to bring relatives to Britain. When an applicant is turned down by civil servants he may write to the Minister, who may tell him to go to the tribunal.
Even after the tribunal has reached a decision, a Minister may exercise his discretion. Recently, there was a famous case in my constituency, in which I was partly involved but from which I later withdrew. I refer to the case of Anwar Ditta, which received great national publicity. The Minister exercised his discretion after the tribunal had refused admission to her children. The establishment of a tribunal for cases involving naturalisation will not limit the Minister's discretion. In supporting the new clause, I should have thought that I was helping the Minister. I should have thought that a Minister would be happy to pass on such responsibility to a judicial tribunal in the knowledge that his decision could be questioned. Indeed, any thorough democrat would welcome that. In addition, his decision could be questioned in a proper judicial court with evidence being adduced and so on. Therefore, there are strong grounds for supporting the new clause. The Bill creates a new situation, and new methods of dealing with it must be found.
I said that I would be brief, because the last new clause to be called is a Liberal one. The longer that I speak the less chance there is of discussing it. I strongly support the new clause because this is a matter of human rights. Someone will have the right to refuse citizenship to an individual and that individual—whatever the legal niceties—will have no right of appeal and no right to argue his case before an independent body. The decision may be made without the individual involved knowing the facts that are being considered. Human dignity and human rights demand that new clause 4 be accepted. I hope that the House will support it.

Mr. Peter Archer: I was not fortunate enough to serve on the Committee dealing with the Bill. Hon. Members may laugh, but perhaps it is a matter of assessment. I feel like someone who has wandered into the middle of a conversation. However, I have had as many distressing constituency cases of this type as has any hon.
Member. And I recollect debates on the Immigration Bill 1971. As the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) pointed out, we had long discussions about the difficulties of appeals and about how they could be surmounted. On that occasion, we managed to persuade the Government that the problems were not insuperable.
This issue is clear-cut. As the hon. Member for Rochdale asked, is the Secretary of State to have a series of completely unfettered discretions, which will deeply affect the lives of human beings, and for which he is unanswerable other than in the hereafter? Or is he to be recognised as human, like the rest of us, and as not claiming any divine power over other humans and thus answerable to some tribunal on behalf of the community?
I join issue with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on two matters. He advanced the startling proposition that unless there was a right, at least in certain circumstances, to nationality, there was no issue that was justifiable before a court. Every day of the week courts ask whether a discretion was properly exercised, whether it was based on an accurate assessment of the facts, or on an accurate interpretation of the statute. Every day courts ask whether the person who exercised that discretion had taken into account something that should not have been taken into account and whether proper weight had been given to all the relevant factors.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not wish to defend the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but his point was clear. If conditions are set, and the applicant meets them, the Home Secretary may still say that he wishes to exercise his discretion. There is no entitlement to naturalisation. It is entirely a matter of the Home Secretary's discretion. Even if the applicant successfully jumps all the hurdles that are erected, there is no guarantee that he will be naturalised. Although I accept the new clause as it stands, the official Opposition must rethink their position. We are faced with a dilemma. Perhaps we should be prepared to consider giving a right to naturalisation when certain conditions have been fulfilled.

Mr. Archer: My hon. Friend and I are at one on this. I, too, should like to dispense with the language of discretion in the statute. As long as it exists, there can be no appeal on the merits of the case to any other tribunal. For the moment, we are faced with a Bill that uses the language of discretion. I am basing my argument on that assumption, if only because there must be a limit to the length of my speech. One can still ask whether the person who made the decision had fully understood the facts and the nature of the law that he sought to apply. One can still ask whether he took account of something that he should have excluded from his mind. At the very least, someone should be able to ask those questions. For that reason, I venture to differ from the right hon. Member for Down, South.
I also had the misfortune to differ from the right hon. Gentleman when he said that we did not need a judicial form of appeal, because there was always the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) has given one answer. If the Minister can say that Parliament has told him that he does not have to give any reason for his decision, that is an effective damper on any debate in the House. There is a more practical difficulty, which is well known to anyone who has served as a Law Officer. The House is hot the best forum for discussing


some personal decisions. There may be embarrassing personal details, where a court would probably sit in camera. The House has to do everything publicly. A Minister might want to make an allegation against someone for perfectly proper reasons. He might wish to say that he did not exercise his discretion in the applicant's favour because he had acted wickedly.
In the House, evidence is not called and there is no cross-examination. There is little opportunity for argument about the details of any allegation. As a result, the situation might be embarrassing. So the House is not always the best forum in personal matters. The Government's position is clear. It is enshrined in clause 41(2). They want to eliminate all power for the courts to intervene. That may be deeply shocking, but I doubt whether we should be surprised. The Home Office has never enjoyed giving reasons for its mental processes.
In an article inThe Daily Telegraph of 27 April, Mr. Paul Sieghart spoke of that proposal as
A clause without any known precedent in British statute.
In Committee the Minister said that that was wrong and pointed to section 26 of the British Nationality Act 1948. He said that that was the precedent. Whatever other differences there may be, I can say what was in the mind of Mr. Sieghart, because I ventured to ask him.
Perhaps I ought to declare an interest. I, too, am a member of the Council of Justice, and Mr. Sieghart was rather encouraged by the council to write the article in question. What he had in mind was that there had been no previous instance in statute of an attempt to exclude judical review under the new rules, for the very good reason that until four years ago there was no judical review. Until 1977 it had not been introduced. The rules of court were introduced in that year to follow the recommendation of the Law Commission. That was what was in the mind of Mr. Seighart. This is the first attempt to exclude that procedure.
It is a battle, which goes back a long way, between the parliamentary draftsmen seeking a form of words with which to place the decisions of the Executive beyond review in the courts, and the courts finding ways of looking round the corners. The statute says that there should be no appeal, so the courts look to see whether the decision was within the jurisdiction of the person who purported to take it. If the statute says that his view of his jurisdiction shall be final, the courts look to see whether the decision that he took was the one that was committed to him by statute.
Some of us were brought up from our earliest days as law students on cases like Board of Education v Rice in 1911 and on a whole series of cases until the Anisminic case in 1969. Some of us remember the Tameside case in 1977—it is deeply etched on our hearts—where the courts in effect said "It appears that the matter was left to the Minister to decide, but he did not ask himself the right question. What he thought he was asking himself was not what he was really asking himself."
Even in the high-water mark case of Liversidge Anderson in the middle of the war, when everybody was desperately concerned that the Executive should have the most adequate of powers, the speech that has been most frequently quoted is the dissenting speech of Lord Atkin. He was troubled by a similar clause even then. He said:
It is a decision which is made by an Executive Minister and not by any kind of judicial officer. It is not made after any inquiry

as to facts to which the subject is a party. It cannot be reversed on any appeal and there is no limit to the period for which the detention may last".
With the exception of the "detention", Lord Atkin might have been speaking about this provision, which can be as deeply affecting in the life of an individual as detention. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons)—I think that I can still call him that—pointed out, if the clause is carried it will be in direct conflict with the other subsection of clause 41, because no declaration can be other than empty words, sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal, if it can be argued that the person who took the decision does not have to give any reason. Nobody can investigate whether he took into account something that the other subsection said he should not take into account. He will tell us—if he chooses—that he did not, and that will be the end of the debate.
I am not usually given to quoting, and I do so on this occasion to show that there is a large body of opinion which is deeply opposed to the Government on this issue. It is not only the judges. It is a provision of a kind that is deplored by all constitutional writers, from Dicey onwards. Dicey, in his "Law of the Constitution", spoke of the rule of law. He said:
It means in the first place the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the Government.
I could quote another dozen authorities, but I should like to give one other high-water mark. It is a quotation from "The New Despotism" by a Lord Chief Justice and former Conservative Minister, Lord Hewart. Speaking of exactly this kind of provision, he said:
There can be little doubt that it is the officials in the Departments concerned who initiate the legislation by which arbitrary powers are conferred upon them.
I am not sure that I would necessarily wish to jump to that conclusion—it may be unfair—but that is what he said. He added:
When Parliament passes such legislation one may wonder how many Members outside the Ministry know what they are really doing. How much less do the people know what is being done in this respect by their representatives? It is inconceivable that such legislation would be passed, at all events without protest, if the legislators knew that they were sapping the foundations of the constitution. All great constitutional lawyers have recognised that it is the rule or supremacy of the law, administered by independent judges, that is the basis of all our constitutional liberties, and it is this characteristic of the British constitution which above all makes that constitution admired throughout the civilised world. Arbitrary power is certain in the long run to become despotism.
8.15 pm
The most recent authoritative work on this question is that of Professor de Smith on "Judicial Review of Administrative Action". He said:
The role of the courts in reviewing administrative acts and decisions has become far more active and creative. This is a phenomenon of the past 15 years and its origins are not so easily identifiable but it must have owed something to post-Franks ethos, to an increase in awareness of the more impressive performance of United States, France and some Commonwealth countries, to a judicial willingness to adopt a more purposive approach to the interpretation of statutes, and to the indirect influence of academic literature upon practitioners, as well as to the resourcefulness of individual judges.
When Professor de Smith speaks of the more effective way in which these things are done in the United States, he reminds us that people find no problems there about the judicial review of exactly this kind of discretion. The way


that they deal with an application for naturalisation is set out in a guide prepared by the American Civil Liberties Union, which says:
If information is developed that indicates that the applicant may not be eligible for naturalisation, he is subjected to a thorough personal investigation which includes the right to subpoena witnesses before a naturalisation examiner. The applicant is entitled to be represented by counsel and to be informed of adverse evidence, to introduce evidence on his behalf and to examine witnesses. A recommendation that the applicant be denied naturalisation must be accompanied by a summary of the evidence, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and where the denial of naturalisation is recommended the petitioner is entitled to a full hearing before the court, with a right to produce witnesses to support his application.

Mr. Dan Jones: Has that system been successful in America and, if so, for how long?

Mr. Archer: I am not sure that I can answer my hon. Friend's second question off the cuff, but I am told by my friends in the American Civil Liberties Union that there is no doubt it has been successful. We do not know whether the system here is successful, because no one is ever in a position to complain to the courts. But in the United States of America there has been complaint from time to time and everyone seems to be satisfied with the system.
The media appear to take the same view of this kind of provision as do the Opposition. I have looked at some of the things that the media said immediately after the Tameside case. The Daily Telegraph spoke of Tameside as
A fresh curb on growing state control".
TheDaily Mail headline was
Schools verdict a big step forward in the fight for liberty".
The Times said:
At the same time there is a robustness about all the appeal judges' approach to the case, a willingness to examine grounds for challenge and a desire to give full weight to statutory limitations on ministerial discretion. All that is heartening evidence that the long retreat of the judiciary before the aggrandisement of the executive has been halted".
That was in reference to a Labour Minister, but I am sure that the press would be fair enough not to introduce distinctions based upon the party affiliations of the Minister concerned. So the newspapers appear to take the same view of this attempt to exclude ministerial discretions from judicial review, to hide them in a corner away from the light of day.
But the Conservative Party itself has a long-standing view on this question. I could produce quotations from Lord Hugh Cecil, but in view of the shortage of time I shall deny myself that pleasure. But I should like to offer two quotations. The first is from Sir Arthur Bryant in "The Spirit of Conservatism". He said:
Justice enforced by the State gives to each man some measure of certainty, enabling him to know where he stands and to plan for the future accordingly".
That was not my selection. It was quoted by a young Conservative politician called Quintin Hogg in his book "The Case For Conservatism" in 1947. He added these words:
The rule of law is as much opposed to regulation and dictatorship as it is to licence or anarchy. What ought to control the individual is not the whim of another individual or group of individuals, even if these are for the moment in legitimate enjoyment of all the panoply and prestige of office.
It would be distressing if the Lord Chancellor felt a difficulty in supporting the Bill in its present form in view of what he wrote, very properly, in the past.
The Conservative Party has from time to time departed from some of the matters that were previously in its philosophy. I do not believe that it has departed on this occasion. In its election manifesto in 1979 it said:
We will see that Parliament and no other body stands at the centre of the nation's life and decisions, and we will seek to make it effective in the job of controlling the executive.
The Secretary of State for the Environment has sought retrospectively to charge local authorities in respect of budgets arrived at before he was given the powers, but I do not believe that even the Conservative Party has departed from its manifesto as completely as that.
If the Secretary of State resists this new clause, and if he goes to another Conservative Party conference, I hope he will be told "We believe in the control of arbitrary power. Conservative theorists have said it since Lord Hugh Cecil. The Lord Chancellor believes it. We said it in our election manifesto. It is part of the British Constitution. That principle is not just for trade unions and Labour councillors. It is valid for all people irrespective of their name or the colour of their skin."
When the Minister of State adopted the other subsection in clause 41 he must have felt that too, because he could not have intended it to be just an empty declaration. At the moment it only confirms the right of every citizen and would-be citizen of the country under the European Convention on Human Rights. How much better to get the matter sorted out over here. If the Secretary of State were to accept this new clause he would earn the approval of the judiciary, of all the authoritative writers on constitutional law, of the media who applauded the decision in the Tameside case, of the Lord Chancellor and those whom he quoted, and of those who drafted the Conservative manifesto.
Who is there left to please? Surely not the Secretary of State himself. I believe that he is a humane and fair man. I do not think that he would wish to conceal his decisions behind a curtain of mystery. Is it the officials in the Home Office? It would be unfair to jump to any conclusion when they are not here to speak for themselves. Whomever it is he wishes to please, if they want to see decisions taken under cover of darkness, not just decisions about security, where there may be problems, but all decisions arising from the Bill, and if they want to see decisions that are not justified openly and honestly, I say to the Secretary of State that he should not trouble to please them, because they are not worth pleasing.

Miss Jo Richardson: I almost hesitated to rise, because of the powerful character of the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). After that speech there is very little to add. I do not see how the Secretary of State can resist that case. I wish simply to make a couple of brief comments.
The whole debate has been about civil liberties and the liberty of the individual, whether he or she be a citizen or, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, a would-be citizen of the country. It is about the right of a person to know what is being said about him and the right to challenge it. We have heard much about the list of criteria in schedule 1 on which a person is going to be judged for citizenship. As has already been said, one of the items is good character. We are given to understand that the decision is linked with the visit of a police officer who talks to the individual.
Presumably the police officer decides whether the person being interviewed can speak English. We are also


led to believe that the police officer may have to make a judgment about the character of the person who is being interviewed. I am not satisfied with that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) quoted the Minister of State, who said that a number of other factors are to be taken into consideration. By implication the Minister of State gave a list of the matters that were not taken into consideration in arriving at a decision about the character of an applicant for citizenship.
The Home Office must have some form of test to decide whether a person is of good character. If the Home Secretary is to reply I should like to know how the process is carried out. For example, are the employers of the person visited? Are they asked for their view of the person who has applied for citizenship? Are neighbours quizzed about the character of the individual? Are friends or people in the local pub asked whether the chap is a decent fellow, or whether he drinks too much? Is the wife or the husband of the applicant asked whether the person comes home late, or has girl friends, boy friends, men friends, or whatever?
By what method does the Home Office decide to grant citizenship in each case? There must be a good deal of snooping. I use the word advisedly. It reminds me very much of the arguments that have been put in the House previously about the tests that I hope we have got rid of on the operation of the cohabitation rule in social security. A person who was in receipt of benefit and was suspected of having claimed that benefit fraudulently was snooped on by neighbours and by officials who were trying to find out whether the person was living with someone else. I believe that there is still an element of snooping.
We do not want to go down that road in regard to decisions on citizenship. I should like to give two brief examples of what I am trying to say. The first concerns someone whom I hardly know but who engaged me in conversation because we both had to wait a long time for a bus. A woman started to complain to me about a neighbour who was extremely noisy, according to her. She said she had suffered very much recently because of the noisiness of this neighbour. She wanted to know what she could do about it. This was put not just to-me but to the bus queue. One or two people asked what the person had been doing. The answer came as follows "Of course, he is black and he lives with a white woman. They have a child. They live next door to me and they have parties." I said "I do not think you should continue along that line, because it sounds racially prejudiced." She said "They are always having parties; you know what these black people are like". I discovered that during the five months when the couple had lived next door to this lady they had had three parties, two of which were over the Christmas holiday.
If a police officer or someone from the Home Office had visited that woman and asked her for an opinion of her next-door neighbour in connection with an application for citizenship, that woman would undoubtedly have given a bad character to an individual whom she hardly knew but against whom she had this tremendous prejudice. That is the sort of occurrence that we must guard against.
8.30 pm
I have a Maltese constituent who has lived in Barking for more than 20 years, who has never been naturalised, whose wife is English, and whose children are British

citizens. Four years ago my constituent came to me and said "I have never thought about it before, but my children and my wife and grandchildren are asking why I am not a British citizen". He said that he had applied for British citizenship but had been refused. He spoke perfectly good English. He had a small business of his own, and no problems. The one small matter that he thought might have militated against the granting of citizenship was that some years ago he had been stopped for speeding. I assured him that I did not think that that could be the reason for the refusal. I had no method of checking. I took up the case with the Home Office and I was told, as every Member of Parliament is told, "Sorry, you cannot know the reasons; they are secret".

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that an important element of an appeals system is its openness, and that the way in which relatively minor offences are used by Government Departments behind a barrier of secrecy can be dangerous? Until comparatively recently, when a case was raised with me and other Labour Members of Parliament, the Department of Education and Science automatically warned each teacher about every offence he committed, including minor motoring offences such as driving without due care and attention, under penalty of losing his job. This system was used by bureaucrats as part of the administrative procedure, because it was not questioned.

Miss Richardson: My hon. Friend is right. We must have openness. There is some openness in, for example, the social security system, where appeals are possible. The only sensible, decent and honourable course is to tell people who apply for citizenship the reasons for refusal, so that they know exactly what they are up against. That is what the Opposition are trying to do in this clause by providing a right of appeal. If we do not do that, we can no longer talk about openness. We shall be seen to be acting with a secrecy that can be paralleled only by the secret trials of totalitarian regimes, which we all despise and deplore. It is an essential part of the tradition of British justice that we should pass the clause.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: I am moved to offer a brief intervention in this debate by the remarkable contribution made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He proceeded to create a magnificent structure, an edifice built of emotion and logic, which was impressive on the outside but virtually empty on the inside. The edifice, to put it at its kindest, was highly challengeable and debatable.
We were taken over a great sweep of legal history from Dicey through to Tameside. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted Lord Hailsham, in his early youth, and Sir Arthur Bryant, and prayed in aid of the rule of law. If this is a sign of the conversion of some other members of the Labour party to the importance of the rule of law in our affairs and in the protection of the individual against the over-mighty Executive, it is a conversion greatly to be welcomed.
But some leading members of the Labour Party, including the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), have been highly critical of Her Majesty's judges and it strikes an ironic chord when the Opposition propose giving new powers to judges when, in other areas, such


as bringing the trade unions within the law, the last thing the Opposition want is that judges should be brought into play to operate the law and to ensure fairness and equity.
The hollowness of the case made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West is contained in the assumption that we are dealing with civil or criminal action and that justice is being meted out and the scales of justice must be weighed. That is not the issue. The issue is the gift of citizenship to someone who, by definition, has another citizenship.

Mr. Archer: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that it does not matter if applicants for citizenship are treated unjustly?

Mr. Whitney: Absolutely not, but I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman to understand that there is an important distinction and that his speech was powerful on the wrong premise. We are discussing the gift of citizenship by this country. The representatives of this country are the House and, therefore, the Government and it is justifiable that, when all the procedures and mechanisms have been gone through, the final repository of discretion should be the elected Government. It is not a question of declaring a person innocent or guilty. The Government will say "We are the guardians of British citizenship and we have the right to confer it or not to confer it."
It is misleading to suggest that a criminal judgment is involved. It is, finally, a political judgment and it is right to leave it firmly in the hands of the elected representatives of the British people.

Mr. Reg Race: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) referred to trade unions and I should like to use an analogy that he may find interesting. What would be the view of the Government and Conservative Back Benchers if trade unions introduced a rule allowing them to exclude any applicant for membership without providing any form of appeal?
That parallel is relevant to the new clause. Conservative Members would table early-day motions, there would be editorials in theDaily Express andThe Daily Telegraph and all hell would be let loose. But in arguments about citizenship the Government and most Conservative Members are silent and wish to introduce a system which will be grossly unfair to applicants who will not know the basis on which administrative decisions about them have been taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) referred to the possible confusion between people with the same surname who applied for naturalisation at different times. In my constituency there are many Greek Cypriots called Georgiou. As there is to be no appeal, no one will know whether, because of an administrative error, the Home Secretary has decided that the wrong Georgiou should be excluded from citizenship. That is one good reason for introducing an appeals system as set out in new clause 4. It would eliminate the simple confusions that can and, as has been acknowledged, do occur. When my hon. Friend the Member for York mentioned the matter, the Minister of State smiled in agreement as if he understood clearly what my hon. Friend was talking about, as I am sure he did.
The number of people going through the naturalisation system will be increased when the Bill comes into force.

It is important therefore that the language test, if there is to be a language test at all, is seen to be fair and above board. It should also be a test against which one can appeal. Many people will be faced with a situation vastly different from that with which they have been faced in the past. A Greek Cypriot family, for instance, may have been living in this country since 1973 or before. They are citizens of Cyprus who may have come here as refugees following the Turkish invasion. The different generations of the family living in the same house will have acquired different standards of English.
What happens when applications for naturalisation are submitted by the family as a whole? The children of the family, who may be attending school in this country, will presumably have an adequate grasp of the English language and will be able to satisfy any police officer or representative of the Home Secretary that they can meet the conditions for naturalisation. The parents may also be able to satisfy those conditions. A question may, however, arise over the position of the grandparents who possibly speak a preponderance of Greek or Turkish and use English only infrequently. They may find themselves on the margin of acceptability when the, police officer interviews the family.
The children and the parents may be accepted for naturalisation while the grandparents are refused. That will cause enormous difficulties within the family. The interpretation by the police officer of the ability of an individual to converse properly in English should go before an independent appeal tribunal to enable a proper decision to be made.
Another point about naturalisation exercises me greatly. A larger number of people will come within the naturalisation system as a result of the phasing out of the registration provision five years from the commencement of the British Nationality Act. Those who have spent a considerable period in this country will be faced with the hurdle of naturalisation. They include a large number who arrived in the 1950s, in the wave of immigration from new Commonwealth countries, holding passports of the United Kingdom and Colonies. When their country of origin subsequently became independent, they acquired a nationality that they did not know they had acquired by virtue of the independence orders passed by this House. Now they find that they are not United Kingdom citizens and that they will have to go through the naturalisation procedure. Their position is especially sensitive. If they are refused naturalisation without the Home Secretary giving any reason, they will feel very aggrieved about the manner in which the Home Secretary has carried out his functions.
This is another example of the increased friction that the operation of the Bill will produce. An appeal system should therefore be introduced for people who feel aggrieved by the Home Secretary's decision. Feeling on this issue in my constituency and, I am sure, in the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends, is running high. All those to whom I have spoken regard as completely indefensible a system whereby people cannot go to an independent body for redress and a review of their position. I therefore hope that new clause 4 will be accepted.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I shall be brief, because other important topics are to be debated this


evening. I resent the fact that our debate today and subsequently is to be truncated by the operation of the guillotine, as happened in Committee.
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) made a surprising statement. He said that he regarded the grant of naturalisation as a political decision. I should think that nothing would justify the introduction of an appeals system against refusals more than the suspicion that naturalisation decisions were made on political grounds. Even in our long days in Committee, there was not one occasion when the Minister suggested that he would exercise his discretion on a political basis, and I hope that he will hotly deny that he has ever done so.

Mr. Whitney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is not a question of political grounds. This is not a judgment between guilty and not guilty. It is within the gift of any Government, or the State, as represented in the House. It is not political in the narrow sense that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but in the sense that Governments have the gift of citizenship. Virtually all Governments have that gift. I should be interested if the hon. Gentleman could point to any Government who hand over this power beyond the realms of Government. That is not the narrow political point that the hon. Gentleman says it is.

Mr. Dubs: It would be most alarming if a change of Minister at the Home Office were to result almost automatically in naturalisation decisions being made on different, though secret, grounds. Surely, individuals who seek to become British citizens and apply for naturalisation should not be subject to the whim of a particular Minister at the Home Office. That is why Labour Members object to the power being exercised in an arbitrary manner. I do not wish to dispute the semantics of what a political decision means. However, the description given by the hon. Member for Wycombe alarms me more than his original statement, because of the doubt that he casts on the process by which naturalisation decisions will be made.
To be fair to the Minister, he attempted to suggest in Committee—he was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—that there was a semi-objective basis on which naturalisation would be granted. The hon. Gentleman discussed various types of criminal and other deviant behaviour, and whether such types of behaviour would automatically, or in certain circumstances, lead to naturalisation being refused. Having listened to what he said, I assume that the Home Office has worked out lists of criteria that it applies to any decision on naturalisation. It is then up to the individual Minister to decide whether the way in which the civil servants apply the criteria should be relevant in any case, or how the grey areas are dealt with.
I concede this much to the hon. Member for Wycombe: it is obvious that the way in which discretion was exercised at the Home Office when my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) was there was different from the way in which it is exercised now. Those of us who have studied the way in which some of the Home Office decisions were made know that. I suggest that that is not good enough. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for York agrees that it should not depend on the luck—from the point of view of the individual applying for naturalization—of

which Minister is sitting in the Home Office. There should be a more objective basis for the grant of naturalisation than exists at present.
In Committee the Minister described the way in which the system worked—at least, he half described it. He said, for example, that sometimes people could work off a refusal and apply again in a number of years. In letters to constituents the Secretary of State has suggested that a two-year period should elapse before a person re-applies. That goes a little way towards meeting our argument. If a person can work off his bad character or improve his language in two years, he will have a reason to try to improve.
In Committee the Minister said that people often had a shrewd idea of why they had been refused. I dispute that. The two-year period hinted at by the Home Office is some comfort, because it is better than a total refusal. However, the person will not know whether he should improve his language, his driving or his bank balance. The Minister has half conceded.
The Minister sounded rather unhappy in Committee. He appeared to be defending a bad case, unless the case hangs almost entirely on the question of security. It has been suggested that the Secretary of State cannot give reasons for refusing in cases of bad character or language because that would reveal the handful of cases involving security. The Government's case rests almost entirely upon that. The case is thin. The Government have many opportunities to sift out security risks. I do not deny that such people exist, but they can be sifted out when they seek entry, or after entry if they are revealed to be security risks. They can be sifted out when they apply for naturalisation. It is not beyond the ability of the Home Office to delay applications in such circumstances. If a person is a security risk, he will know the reason for the refusal without the Home Office stating it. The Government are making much of a thin case. I hope that they will think again and accept the new clause.

Mr. Michael Shersby: When we discussed this matter at length in Committee, we were told that the main reason for the Secretary of State's discretion was to deal with security cases and fraud, and when it is thought that applicants should defer applications for a year or two.
My right hon. Friend must make his case strongly if we are to maintain the Secretary of State's discretion. It has been put to me that the issue is fundamental to the control of the operation of any discretionary power, since otherwise persons exercising such power can define the limits of that power. That is important for people who are affected by the exercise of the Secretary of State's power.
I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to give the House more information about the security aspects which he has to consider and about the issues surrounding fraud and undesirable characters which must also be taken into account.
The question whether there should be a right of appeal, such as that referred to in the new clause, needs to be considered in the context of whether its introduction would increase the confidence of the ethnic minority community, or whether it would undermine the security of the State or the ability of the Home Secretary to refuse a certificate of naturalisation to a person who may be an undesirable character because he or she may have been involved in some fraudulent business activity, or something of that nature.
One important point that arose in Committee, with which every hon. Member is familiar, is whether the procedure is adequate whereby an individual Member of Parliament acts as a channel of appeal to the Home Secretary. Some argue that it is not. My experience shows that Home Secretaries, both of my party and of the Labour Party, have the utmost consideration, take the greatest possible care in reaching their decisions and, generally speaking, inform me as the Member of Parliament concerned about the generality of the reasons for a refusal.
I have always taken the view that my ability to represent the interests of a constituent gives the constituent the benefit of personal attention, of speed and also of my being able to raise the case not only with the Home Secretary but in debate in the House and, if necessary, to spotlight a certain case nationally in front of the press or television. All those factors are valuable.
The view is held, and I must take account of it, that, although that channel may be valuable and although the ethnic minority community may accept that Members of Parliament act properly and take the greatest possible care to pursue their interests, some formalised procedure is necessary if justice is to be seen to be done. I suppose that that is the crux of the argument on an important matter.
Hon. Members on both sides have said that such a procedure is fundamental to good, harmonious race relations, a matter in which I am greatly interested. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary replies, I hope that he will clearly set out his position on the matter and say whether he believes that it is necessary to retain the existing system whereby the discretion of the Home Secretary is absolute, not subject to any inquiry and not subject to the giving of any reasons, or whether he believes that, because of the expressions of concern from both sides of the House, he should consider the matter again before the Bill becomes law.
Those are my feelings about the matter. It is a serious and important issue which should receive the closest possible attention from Parliament, not only this evening but during the remainder of the Bill's passage through Parliament before it receives its Royal Assent. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend has to say.

9 pm

Mr. Cryer: I wish to emphasise that it is about time we changed to some degree the character of our Government. We thrust on to Secretaries of State far too much work. We make them legally responsible for dozens of tasks by primary and subordinate legislation. For example, the Home Secretary issues warrants for telephone tapping and gives these his personal careful scrutiny. He issues several warrants a week. He is now to examine—presumably he does so already—applications for naturalisation. He has to give these applications his careful, detailed scrutiny and examination.
We must recognise that in the present state of our nation the great burden of this work is carried out by the Civil Service. I have no doubt that many civil servants try to undertake the work with the utmost integrity and with the greatest efficiency. However, they are in a position to mount initiatives in taking decisions because Ministers are overloaded with work and because they have a great many statutory functions to undertake. At the end of the day only civil servants can sift through the many papers and give

their approval or rejection. In those circumstances decisions can be made that are hurried and that may be faulty. In the present circumstances, and by virtue of the legislation that is proposed, they will be secret decisions, without reasons given. They are therefore not accountable decisions.
I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will say that he is accountable to the House and to Parliament. That is so much empty verbiage, in the context that we cannot possibly know what is going on and the reasons that lead him to make a decision. Unless we know those reasons we cannot possibly make him accountable to the House. It seems entirely reasonable that we should have some form of appeal that will bring to light the reasons that the Home Secretary is applying and will provide the right for a further scrutiny of his decision.
I am not addressing these remarks to the present Home Secretary alone. There are other areas of Government where, because the inner Government and the massive Civil Service are used to doing things in the current way, it is convenient, in legislation, to embrace the Secretary of State and to obtain his decision. We should turn aside from the existing system to some degree, open out the decision making and provide a check not only here, where it is difficult to take up individual cases, but through the proposals that are set out in the new clause.
Some Conservative Members have remarked on the fact that there are some who have been critical of judges. That does not mean that we cannot accept that there are judges who are able, and are men of integrity, who will use their best abilities. We recognise that as a general body the judiciary aims to apply the standard of justice that we would want to see applied to naturalisation cases as well as to other cases of a civil or criminal nature.

Mr. Shersby: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House take the opportunity to raise matters that concern individual constituents in, for example, Adjournment debates. Such debates are valued by us all and by our constituents. They are a means of opening up individual cases and the Minister concerned has to reply in the House. One has to balance that against the flexibility of the system in which the Secretary of State has discretion, which is often exercised in favour of the applicant rather than against him.

Mr. Cryer: There is a certain parallel with exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. Although one can raise individual cases in the House, as I and many other hon. Members have done, at the end of the day the Home Secretary does not have to advance reasons for the making of an exclusion order. He does not have to account for his actions. He merely says "The information that I have received justifies my decision". It is very much the same with applications for naturalisation. In my view the argument about security and prevention of terrorism cannot be attached to applications for naturalisation, and I would argue that orders under the prevention of terrorism legislation are not necessary.
However, in this case, as in others, we must ensure that justice is seen to be done. It is not a slur on the Home Secretary's position to suggest that there should be some sort of appeal. It will give him that greater zeal in scrutiny in the midst of the enormous number of tasks that he must


perforce undertake. I should have thought that the new clause would add to the openness, quality and calibre of Government and that that was something that both sides of the House would welcome.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I recognise that this is an important debate. I also recognise that ultimately it affects me personally as the Home Secretary of the day. That is why I have been particularly anxious not only to reply, but—I hope that the House will at least give me credit for one thing—to hear every speech that has been made this afternoon. I regard that as my duty and I have carried out that duty. I do not complain that it has been a long debate. That is proper and right.
I say at once to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that I do not rest my case on any argument that any Home Secretary should resent his decisions being examined in the House or elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman is right. The range of responsibilities inevitably means that the Home Secretary takes decisions under great pressures. Therefore, of course the Home Secretary welcomes that.
I shall now turn to this particular case. I accept at once what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has said, that it has divided the House and that it is of great importance. I shall rest my case on the basis that I do not believe that a right of appeal, as proposed in the new clause, is compatible with the general principles underlying naturalisation as it has always existed in our law. That is the purport of my case. I am extremely sensitive to the arguments that it is important that the system devised should be fair and should be felt to be fair.
I say "naturalisation" because the case is different with the provisions in our legislation which provide for registration as an entitlement—the decisions taken by the Secretary of State on such applications are not discretionary. If satisfied that the entitlement exists, the Secretary of State must grant the application. Since such decisions made by the Secretary of State are not discretionary, they are not covered by section 26 of the British Nationality Act, which would otherwise operate to preclude judicial review. This means that it would be possible—and it does occasionally happen—for an application to be made to the courts of judicial review of a decision to refuse a claimed entitlement to registration. The Bill would not change that situation. That is why I believe that in our arguments we should be concentrating our minds on naturalisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) was right in what he said about naturalisation. The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) was unfair in the way in which he put a political side to the argument.
Naturalisation has always, in this as in many other countries, been within the gift of the State. It used to be a matter within the grant of the Sovereign. Later, powers to naturalise were exercised by Parliament. But it has long ceased to be practicable for naturalisation to be granted, except in very rare cases, by Act of Parliament. That is why discretion whether or not to grant naturalisation has been vested by Parliament in the Home Secretary since 1844.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that, in the nature of things, no one has a right to another country's citizenship. Therefore, many of

the arguments today about human rights and civil liberties miss the point. Naturalisation cannot be a right. Parliament can, of course, legislate to accord people entitlements if certain criteria are met, but in such instances Parliament is taking a conscious decision to limit the overall discretion that would otherwise reside in the Government of the day.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If it is impossible for citizenship to be given as a right, how can it be possible to acquire citizenship by registration as a right? The number of registrations is greater than the number of naturalisations.

Mr. Whitelaw: I thought that I had made the case that registration is an entitilement and naturalisation is not. If I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I am prepared to consider what he says, but I believe that I made the point clear.
The existence, therefore, of entitlement to registration in our nationality law does not affect my main contention, which is that people who are not our citizens can have no right to our citizenship. They will not, therefore, be able to acquire it except on the terms that Parliament lays down. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) fairly said, there is the problem of how to fit the new clause in with the criteria set down by Parliament.
Before we can sensibly consider appeal rights, we must ask ourselves what terms Parliament should lay down for the acquisition of our citizenship by naturalisation. The Standing Committee considered that matter. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made some amusing comments on the criteria laid down and set forth by the Minister of State. However, I must come back to the point that it would be extremely difficult to decide what justiciable criteria should be laid down. It would cause great trouble in any possible appeal procedure. The Standing Committee decided at the end of the day that the decision whether the application should be granted should remain—this is our debate today—even when those criteria were met with the Secretary of State.
The real problem is that it is simply not practicable to reconcile rights of appeal with the exercise of an absolute discretion. Some hon. Members have sought to have the best of both worlds, but I do not believe that it is possible. Whenever the appellate authority, whatever it be, takes a different view from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State's discretion in future is automatically fettered not only for that case but for any others like it that exhibit similar features. That would become inevitable. I tell hon. Members who would argue otherwise that, in truth, that argument is frequently put to me in many cases in which judicial decisions have been made.
If we moved towards an appeal system, we should lose control of who should be allowed to obtain our citizenship. In certain circumstances—that is to say, where they could show that their cases were similar to cases that had succeeded on appeal—citizens of other countries would, in effect, be able to claim our citizenship as of right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said.
The Green Paper published by the Labour Government made the same point. It basically said that a right of appeal could not be reconciled with a discretionary naturalisation system based on subjective tests of good character. I should like to quote from paragraph 60, which reads:
it is questionable whether it would be apt to have an appeals system if good character, assessed in each case by analysing all


the facts involved, were to remain the criterion for citizenship. The diversity encountered in application is very wide. The judgments which have to be made in this area are essentially subjective, and matters of this kind are not easily justiciable…Under the present system the standards applied in the generality of cases can be, and are, modified, and exceptions made to them, where this seems justified.
I think that that Green Paper made two significant comments, and it lies at the heart of what I now wish to say about the relationship in this matter of the Secretary of State and the House.

Mr. Clinton Davis: rose——

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry, but there are other debates to follow, so I must resist the temptation to give way. It has been a long debate and hon. Members have had the chance to make their points.
Much has been said about the way in which we operate in the House and the control exercised on the Secretary of State which, after a long period in the House, I find surprising. I shall come to that in a moment.
The Government believe that it is wrong to imagine that it would be possible to devise a system of objective tests which covered all possible eventualities. I do not believe that it would be possible. Of course, it has not so far been tried.
The other point to note is that the present system. is flexible. Where Home Secretaries consider it justified, changes can be made to the way in which particular types of case should be considered, and individual cases can be
treated exceptionally where there are exceptional factors.
I was surprised to see the love for appeal tribunals that some hon. Members appear suddenly to have gained, because those same hon. Members frequently blame me unless I am prepared to exercise my discretion in cases which have already gone to appeal. I am greatly criticized if I do not do so. I could cite a number of cases—I can see some of the hon. Members involved in them—in which, if I had not had that discretion and the cases had been decided purely upon appeal, people who are in this country today would not have been here under the immigration rules. I am therefore interested to note that the House seems to have a new-found interest in appeal bodies that I had not witnessed up to now.
I shall come to reasons later, as these are important matters and I have an important point to make. I must also say that I find it surprising to hear that hon. Members do not press the Secretary of State or the Minister of State or do not take up their constituents' cases with me. The number of cases taken up with me—and, inevitably, the much larger number taken up with the Minister of State—is considerable in relation to this subject. There are far more, I freely admit, on the subject of the application of immigration controls, but a large number of cases are put forward on this subject.
If anyone imagines that it is always easy to give answers and to duck Adjournment debates, I must say that that is not my experience. When I receive letters from hon. Members and when cases are brought to me, I take a great deal of trouble.
I must say in passing to the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) that my attitude to the cases put forward by hon. Members is not formed on the

basis of whether I have acquired a liking for the hon. Member concerned. He seemed to suggest that some hon. Members did not take up constituents' cases unless they liked them. I found that a surprising admission, but that is what he said. I believe that it is important to take up every case on its merits and I must claim that that is certainly what I seek to do. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) how important I believe it is that the right exists for Members of Parliament to take up individual cases and to expect them to be treated exceptionally.
The great case that I would argue is that the flexibility of the present system would be destroyed by an appeals system and I believe that that would make it very much more difficult than at present.
I should not like to examine the case for an appeal system in practical terms and also some of the practical difficulties of setting one up. Once again, the Green Paper published by the Labour Government, in paragraph 59, said:
Admittedly, a decision to refuse citizenship usually has little immediate impact on the everyday life of the applicant; it does not affect his ability to stay in this country, and he is free, for instance, to own property. But refusal might prevent someone from entering a post, such as those in the Civil Service, which is restricted to those holding certain nationalities. A right of appeal would offer some help in such a case.
The occupations concerned are normally open to Commonwealth citizens and, under our present law, to the citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, the potential hardship is confined to foreign nationals.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: No.

Mr. Whitelaw: As the hon. Gentleman wishes to dispute something that I am stating as a fact, I shall give way to him.

Mr. Mikardo: I am disputing the right hon. Gentleman's point, because I have personal experience of it. It is not only the chap himself who can be put at a disadvantage, but also his children. My father was refused naturalisation after living 30 blameless years in this country. Although I was born here, I was put at a disadvantage in several ways. For example, I was held to be ineligible for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Whitelaw: I was about to say that the range of occupations concerned is relatively narrow. With his usual considerable skill, the hon. Gentleman has caught me out. I was about to say that that range of occupations included the Armed Forces, the police and the Bank of England as well as that of master or owner of a British ship. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that a refusal of naturalisation has not caused difficulty in any but the most exceptional cases. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's case. If anyone intends to join one of the Services mentioned, and has been accepted subject to his acquiring our citizenship, we do our best to give consideration of his case priority so that we do not stand in his way, or in that of the Service concerned.

Mr. Mikardo: I had citizenship. I was British by birth.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am becoming slightly confused as to the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Mikardo: The right hon. Gentleman said that the limitations put on those refused naturalisation were small. Until I told him about it, he was not conscious of the fact


that some limitations are put on the children of those who are refused naturalisation, although they are themselves British.

Mr. Whitelaw: As the hon. Gentleman says so, I must believe him. However, I am surprised to hear it. It is difficult to see how that could be so in relation to occupations and particular categories of job.

Mr. Edward Lyons: rose——

Mr. Whitelaw: I believe that I referred to the hon. and learned Gentleman, so I shall give way.

Mr. Lyons: The British-born sons of Poles in my constituency cannot get into the Navy. I take up every case that is brought to me, but people have brought me cases because other hon. Members would not take them up. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that one should take up every case.

Mr. Whitelaw: I note the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. When one examines the total refusals of naturalisation over the past 10 years one finds that they are not large in number, either absolutely or as a percentage of the total. The figures were given in Committee and were discussed again this afternoon. The number of refusals comes, on average, to just under 10 per cent. a year over the last five years. I should not have thought that those facts showed a practical need for a right of appeal.
In many of the cases refused, such a right would be wholly uncalled for. A person who was refused on the grounds that he had failed to meet statutory residence requirements—the commonest reason for refusal—should be able to bring himself within those requirements without exercising an expensive right of appeal. I understand some of the anxiety expressed, but I believe that the same goes for those who have an insufficient knowledge of the language. In many cases, those involved make themselves more proficient in the language and are later naturalised. Therefore, that is a fair point about appeal.
In the two examples that I have just mentioned—failure to meet the residence requirements and insufficient knowledge of English—we would usually give the reasons for our decisions, and should do so. I was surprised when the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) said that the Home Office never gave the reasons. That is inaccurate. I hope she will realise that I know because I have on occasion given some of the reasons myself. It is right that in those circumstances reasons should be given, and I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and in another context by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon).
There is a difficulty—I come back to what was said by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook—in informing an applicant that he is a security risk. I believe that there would be substantial difficulties arising from the right hon. Gentleman's idea of a warrant to an appeal tribunal, for the question whether a Home Secretary was justified in giving that warrant could then be argued at considerable length. It would become very difficult for the Home Secretary in many cases to do more than get back into the original position. He would have to say that he could not give reasons, other than security, for the warrant that he had granted. There is a problem here and I find it difficult to see how it would be possible to give reasons in the

security cases. I admit that there are not a great many of them and I would not wish to make too much of the security point, but it is clearly there.
With regard to good character, references are asked for, and the main method of proceeding is to follow up the references, such as those which hon. Members will from time to time have given in the cases of their own constituents. We should give reasons whenever we possibly can, and I take the point made by the House in this respect. It is most important. I doubt whether there are many cases in which the applicant is in much doubt as to the reason for refusal in his case.
Against this background, the House should look very seriously at whether the extra costs of an appeal system would be justified. I would not rest my whole case on that aspect, but one has to look at that as well. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will admit that new clause 4 is probably the most expensive of the available options. However, I do not wish to make too much of that, because I am against an appeals system on principle in regard to naturalisation.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) made an important speech. He said that the idea of an appeal tribunal would be welcomed by everyone, including the judiciary. I have grave doubts whether that would be the case, because it would place a heavy load on an already overburdened judiciary; no one could deny that. In reading the references to judges in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and Court of Session, he will surely agree that the degree of judicial eminence that is sought for the system would be excessive for its purpose. I do not believe that it would be sound. I do not believe that a right of appeal in this regard would work, for the reasons that I have given to the House.
At the same time, I hope that I have also made it clear to the House that I believe that it is important that reasons should be given whenever possible, and that the administration of the discretion, supervised by this House, should be seen to be fair. It is my job, if I believe that it is the best way in which to proceed in regard to naturalisation, to make sure that it is seen to be fair.
I do not believe that a formal right of appeal would be appropriate, because of the nature of the decision that would be challenged. That decision is of such a kind that only Parliament should be in a position to question the Home Secretary's use of his discretion. To say that one is answerable to Parliament is not an empty phrase. I should be surprised if many of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who press me on different occasions would claim that it was so. I am answerable to Parliament when there is maladministration. That takes up the point in regard to the argument about civil servants that we have heard. today. Parliament has its Commissioner for Administration, the Ombudsman, to investigate cases which are referred to him.
The system in regard to naturalisation is the only workable one. It is right and sensible. I recognise that it is my responsibility to make sure that it works fairly. That I undertake to the House I shall do. On that basis I ask the House to reject the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 290.

Division No. 195]
[9.30 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Foster, Derek


Adams, Allen
Foulkes, George


Allaun, Frank
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Anderson, Donald
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Freud, Clement


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ginsburg, David


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Gourlay, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Graham, Ted


Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bidwell, Sydney
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bradley, Tom
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Buchan, Norman
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Hooley, Frank


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Horam, John


Campbell, Ian
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Howells, Geraint


Canavan, Dennis
Huckfield, Les


Cant, R. B.
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Janner, Hon Greville


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cook, Robin F.
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cowans, Harry
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Craigen, J. M.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Crowther, J. S.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kerr, Russell


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lambie, David


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Litherland, Robert


Deakins, Eric
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Dewar, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Dixon, Donald
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Dobson, Frank
McCartney, Hugh


Dormand, Jack
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Douglas, Dick
McKay, Allen(Penistone)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McKelvey, William


Dubs, Alfred
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Duffy, A. E. P.
McNally, Thomas


Dunn, James A.
McNamara, Kevin


Dunnett, Jack
McTaggart, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Magee, Bryan


Eadie, Alex
Marks, Kenneth


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


English, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maxton, John


Evans, John (Newton)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ewing, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Field, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Fitt, Gerard
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ford, Ben
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)





Morton, George
Stallard, A. W.


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stoddart, David


O'Halloran, Michael
Straw, Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Parker, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Parry, Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Dr H. (Carmarthen)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tilley, John


Prescott, John
Tinn, James


Race, Reg
Torney, Tom


Radice, Giles
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Richardson, Jo
Wainwright. R. (Colne V)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Watkins, David


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Weetch, Ken


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wellbeloved, James


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Welsh, Michael


Rooker, J. W.
White, Frank R.


Roper, John
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Whitlock, William


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wigley, Dafydd


Rowlands, Ted
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ryman, John
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Sever, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Winnick, David


Short, Mrs Renée
Woodall, Alec


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wright, Sheila


Skinner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton E)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)



Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. James Hamilton and


Spearing, Nigel

Mr. Joseph Dean.


Spriggs, Leslie





NOES


Adley, Robert
Butler, Hon Adam


Aitken, Jonathan
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Arnold, Tom
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Churchill, W. S.


Banks, Robert
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bendall, Vivian
Clegg, Sir Walter


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Cockeram, Eric


Best, Keith
Colvin, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cope, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Corrie, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, Sir Albert


Blackburn, John
Cranborne, Viscount


Blaker, Peter
Critchley, Julian


Body, Richard
Crouch, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dover, Denshore


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dunlop, John


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Brittan, Leon
Durant, Tony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Brotherton, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Eggar, Tim


Browne, John (Winchester)
Elliott, Sir William


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fairgrieve, Russell


Buck, Antony
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Budgen, Nick
Farr, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Fell, Anthony


Burden, Sir Frederick
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Butcher, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey






Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marland, Paul


Fletcner, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Marlow, Tony


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Forman, Nigel
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mates, Michael


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mawby, Ray


Fry, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mayhew, Patrick


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mellor, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodhart, Philip
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Gow, Ian
Molyneaux, James


Gower, Sir Raymond
Monro, Hector


Gray, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Moore, John


Grist, Ian
Morgan, Geraint


Grylls, Michael
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Murphy, Christopher


Hannam, John
Myles, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Hastings, Stephen
Needham, Richard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Paul
Neubert, Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Tony


Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley


Heddle, John
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Henderson, Barry
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hill, James
Parkinson, Cecil


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Parris, Matthew


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hooson, Tom
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hordern, Peter
Pattie, Geoffrey


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Percival, Sir Ian


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pink, R. Bonner


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pollock, Alexander


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kershaw, Anthony
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Kimball, Marcus
Prior, Rt Hon James


King, Rt Hon Tom
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Knox, David
Raison, Timothy


Lamont, Norman
Rathbone, Tim


Lang, Ian
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Latham, Michael
Renton, Tim


Lawrence, Ivan
Rhodes James, Robert


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lee, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Loveridge, John
Rossi, Hugh


Luce, Richard
Rost, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Royle, Sir Anthony


McCrindle, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacGregor, John
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Scott, Nicholas


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Madel, David
Shepherd, Richard


Major, John
Shersby, Michael





Silvester, Fred
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Sims, Roger
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Speed, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Speller, Tony
Waddington, David


Spence, John
Wakeham, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sproat, Iain
Walker, B. (Perth)


Squire, Robin
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Stainton, Keith
Wall, Patrick


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waller, Gary


Stanley, John
Walters, Dennis


Steen, Anthony
Ward, John


Stevens, Martin
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Wells, Bowen


Stokes, John
Wheeler, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Tapsell, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Wickenden, Keith


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wiggin, Jerry


Tebbit, Norman
Williams, D. (Montgomeiy)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Donald
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thornton, Malcolm



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Noes:


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant


Trippier, David
and Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

RIGHTS OF REGISTRATION

`Any person who is a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of Pakistan or the wife of such a citizen shall be entited on application for his registration as a British citizen, to be registered as such a citizen if he satisfies the Secretary of State that he was settled in the United Kingdom at commencement'. —[Mr. Tilley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tilley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I intend to be brief. I recognise that hon. Members wish to proceed to later clauses. The issue was discussed in Committee, but the Opposition felt that it should be brought before the whole House on Report. Our wish is that the right to register should remain for those for whom it exists at the moment. We believe that new nationality law should be approached from the principle of preserving the accrued rights that Commonwealth citizens and their wives already possess. Our approach is that no one should lose rights that are already available.
The loss of right to register is the issue that has created the most fear, resentment and concern in the black community. The Opposition see this part of the Bill as a racialist provision. The vast majority of those who lose the right to register as British citizens are black. The Government originally planned a period of grace of two years for the loss of right to registration. As a result of pressure by the Opposition, by organisations outside the House, and a mild revolt by some Conservative Back Benchers, the Government extended the period to five years. Even the longer period is nowhere near enough.
Once the period of grace—whether it is two years or five years—is over, those who are now eligible to become British citizens as of right will have to go through the process of naturalisation. Some indication was given in the


previous debate about the problems posed for people going through the process of naturalisation. It is important to contrast the process of naturalisation with the registration process that exists at present.
Naturalisation takes much longer. Parliamentary answers have revealed a difference between 25 months and nine months. The cost of naturalisation is three times higher than registration and may soon be even greater. Registration costs £50, whereas naturalisation costs £150, and there has been every indication from the Government that the cost will soon be £200 or more.
Most important is the degree of uncertainty for those applying for naturalisation. There will be the subjective test, whereby a civil servant or the Minister decides that applicants are of good character. There is also the language test, with all its deficiencies. In many cases no reason will be given for a refusal to grant naturalisation. Nor is there any appeal against a refusal by the Home Secretary. It is a secret, arbitrary lengthy and costly process compared with the automatic right of registration for 500,000 adult Commonwealth citizens in this country. This figure will be increased when those who are not yet adults acquire the right on reaching the age of majority. A large proportion of the community in this country will therefore be affected when the right is lost.
Our amendment includes not only Commonwealth citizens but citizens of Pakistan, despite the fact that they are covered by the Pakistan Act 1974. The stark contrast between what happened when Pakistan left the Commonwealth and when South Africa left the Commonwealth was revealed in Committee. South Africans received eight years and seven months in which to decide whether to register as British citizens, or as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies as it was then, if they so wished. People from Pakistan, resident in this country, were given a little over one year. That seemed to the Opposition a stark and unfair contrast, which we consider should be put right by the new clause.
The large number of people whom we are discussing came to this country before 1973 and have therefore been resident here for five years. They have worked here and paid taxes here for a long time. They have observed our laws for a long time. They are entitled to expect that rights that they at present enjoy should not be removed by the Bill.
The Government and their supporters ask "Why have these people not made up their minds about registering? They will have had a lot of time before the commencement of the Act, and they will have time—five years now—after." There are two answers to that perfectly fair question. One is that many of these people do not know that they are not entitled automatically to become British citizens on commencement. They are not aware that they are no longer United Kingdom and Colonies passport holders. Many of the people—particularly West Indians—came in the 'fifties and early 'sixties from the West Indies in response to this country's need for workers. Many of them came in the 'forties, in response to this country's need, to fight in the Second World War. They came at a time when the islands that they left were part of the British Empire, and they came on United Kingdom and Colonies passports. They have kept those passports. They

regard themselves as still being full United Kingdom and Colonies passport holders—as they see it, full British citizens.
Since that time, the islands that they came from have become independent. By the independence Acts passed by the House, all those people, whether they came from Trinidad, Jamaica or Guyana, became citizens of the independent countries from which they came. Neither this Government nor any previous Governments bothered to inform them that they were no longer citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Only when they apply for a passport—sometimes years later—to visit Europe, or to visit the island from which they came, do they discover that they are no longer eligible for United Kingdom and Colonies passports. They have not had many years in which to make up their minds. The Governments who took away their rights never told them that they were no longer eligible.
Secondly, many of those people have not had a long time because some of the colonies—again, I speak of the West Indies—have only recently acquired independence. St. Lucia and St. Vincent acquired independence only in 1979. People from those islands have had a registration right that they have not taken up for the past two years. Antigua is likely to become independent later this year. So it will be only after enactment of this Bill that Antiguans will no longer be United Kingdom and Colonies passport holders and therefore eligible for the rights of registration that the Government seek to take away from them.
In answering the question why people have not made up their minds, we should put the counter question, which the Government failed to answer in Committee: why do they go to the trouble of taking rights away from these people, thereby adding to the insecurity that they already feel because some sections of the community do not welcome them here? The Government should say why they have taken this studied objection to the idea of special relationships with the Commonwealth that is enshrined in earlier legislation, that Commonwealth citizens who are resident here and legally settled should be able to become British citizens more easily and more cheaply than aliens.
We have shown that it creates resentment among those who have proved their attachment to our country by working and, in some cases, fighting for this country over a generation. They suddenly find that they are not British citizens and that they have no right to become such. As we heard in the last debate, it is in the gift of the Government, and the Government are determined to be unaccountable in the granting of that gift.
There are apprehensions about the future. Many Commonwealth citizens resident here fear that once the period of grace is over their current civic and voting rights will be taken away. It is the thin end of the wedge. The Government's action is unnecessary. There is no longer an argument for having only one method of obtaining citizenship—by naturalisation. In Committee the Government said that there would be citizenship by registration for the foreseeable future for another class of people. Naturalisation and registration are the two systems. Why will not the Government allow the people who now have the right to register under the law—mainly middle-aged or elderly black people who have given half or more of their working lives to this country—to keep their right to register as British citizens for the rest of their lives?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In the course of the debate that the House has just completed the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) put to the Home Secretary a question which I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman understood. Certainly, he did not answer it. The answer to the question appears to be germane to the new clause. The question that the hon. Gentleman asked was: "Why do we have a distinction between naturalisation to which there is no right and registration to which almost everywhere in the Bill there is a right denoted by the typical use of the word `entitlement'?" If one answers that question, one answers the question posed by the new clause.
In 1948, when we last legislated for British nationality, we in Britain still regarded the status of British subject as the essential status. It is true that in order to conform with what was happening in the rest of the Commonwealth, and particularly with what had happened already in the Dominion of Canada, we altered the basis of our citizenship from that of allegiance to that of citizenship. We created a citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies which would for us be the gate of access, as it were, to the real status of British subject, just as for the other countries of the Commonwealth their citizenships in the terms of the 1948 Act were their access, as we saw it, to the status of British subject or Commonwealth citizen.
The essential status, therefore—and this was the thinking behind the Act 33 years ago—was that of British subject. That was the mark of our nationality and the criterion for the exercise of the typical rights and duties of those who owned a nationality. We are now deliberately, after 33 years, reversing that. It is now to be citizenship that has reality. Although there will be some vestiges in our law, some of them quite important, of Commonwealth citizen—alas, British subject is virtually abolished by the Bill—we are now focusing upon the citizenship of the United Kingdom as the reality of our status and our nationality.
Admission to that, therefore, constitutes naturalisation. That is what the House was debating essentially during the debate that has just concluded. However, a transition is still to be made, from the point of view of 1948 and all that, to our new point of view whereby nationality is citizenship, and not the worldwide British subject. Therefore, there exists a quasi-nationality, that of the citizens of the different countries of the Commonwealth and, indeed, of some that have ceased to be part of the Commonwealth—which 20 or 30 years ago were still of the essence——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Animal Health Bill[Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boscawen].

British Nationality Bill

Bill, as amended (in Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a second time.

Mr. Powell: I was saying that 20 or 30 years ago the citizens of those countries were still of the essence of our national status. In making this change, almost an inversion, we must provide a transition. Registration, in the context of the new clause, is essentially transitional. It is transitional from British subject or Commonwealth citizen as the basic status to citizen of the United Kingdom as the basic status.
In a recognition of the fact that there is that transition we allow time—in the Bill it is usually set at five years—for those who have hitherto had a status equated with our own to be able to give reality to that old equation. But it is an old equation, which it is in the Bill's purpose to abolish. Therefore, the new clause runs essentially counter to the purpose and principle, as I understand them, of the Bill.
There is no limit of time upon the facilities provided in the new clause. The whole argument put forward by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) is that we should recognise, and in the terms of the new clause recognise permanently, that special relationship. The special relationship that existed in 1948 has now become so tenuous as to be scarcely perceptible. It is now only a relationship between independent nations—our own on the one part and more than 30 on the other—whose recognition and status as independent nations are, tc some extent, owed to the work and the legislation of the House.
The Opposition are asking, through the new clause, essentially for a negation of the purpose of the Bill. They are asking for the equivocal or obsolete equation of Commonwealth citizen and British national to be maintained indefinitely and, in the case of nationals of Pakistan who are not within the Commonwealth, to be artificially extended.
In a sense the clause could be described almost as a wrecking clause. It has its uses, perhaps, in that it helps by lucendo lucus a non lucendo to illuminate the purpose and the reality of what we are bringing about by the nature of the Bill, namely, giving ourselves a national status in the United Kingdom which hitherto, in both the Commonwealth and the world, we have lacked in law.

Mr. Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Not for the first time, I disagree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It is an unusual feature, however, that we disagree about the factual history of how the position has arisen. We would both agree that in 1948 Parliament missed a great opportunity to settle the issue of British citizenship when other Commonwealth countries decided that they would take citizenship. We would both agree that from that major error has flown much of the difficulties in administering a sensible, just and humane immigration policy. We may disagree about what the policy should be, but we agree that that major fault has lain behind the sorry spectacle of successive immigration Acts.
However, on this issue I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in error. We are not getting rid of British subjecthood in the Bill. We got rid of British subjecthood in 1948. We decided in 1948 that there would not be universal subjecthood. We used the term "Commonwealth citizenship", but it had no real meaning. The real meaning was attached to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Those who did not have that citizenship when they came here, even though they were Commonwealth citizens, were entitled to claim the type of citizenship that we enjoyed. We created a new system of acquiring citizenship called registration, which was different from naturalisation which applied to aliens. Aliens had to ensure that they were of good character, that they could speak English and that they had been here for a certain time. I think that in those days it was one year, but the period was extended to five years.
Registration was automatic after a year in those days, but the period was extended to five years. However, registration was automatic for Commonwealth citizens after that period of residence until the inception of the Immigration Act 1971, when registration was made subject to the same test as naturalisation—namely, good character and the language test. If a person came here after 1973 from the Commonwealth, he had to be here for five years, he had to be of good character and he had to be able to speak English sufficiently well to make a police officer understand. If we accept the new clause, we shall go back on the position that has obtained since 1973.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) introduced his new clause, I understood him to say that we should keep the automatic right to registration which existed in 1973 and which existed for those who came before 1973. That was the case we argued in Committee.
I am glad that the new clause was drafted as it appears before us. In my view, this is the most important issue that we shall discuss on Report. Equally, it was the most important issue that we could have discussed in Committee. That is because the Bill affects us all. For the great majority of us who are by definition under the 1971 Act patrial citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, it occasions not very much difference from our existing position.
The Government's purpose in drafting the Bill has been to ensure that patrial citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies retain all their present rights. That reassurance can be given to 95 per cent. of the population. the majority of the population are casually indifferent to the Bill.

However, for 5 per cent. of the population the Bill is a threat to their status and they wonder what it will mean for them.
The Minister says that undue alarm has been fermented among minority groups by those who are encouraging them to believe that something that is not in the Bill may be true. It is equally true that there are provisions in the Bill that have caused justifiable alarm in the minority community. I am sure that the Minister will accept that all the alarm, irrespective of whether it is justifiable, exists among about 5 per cent. of the population. They are worried about what the Bill will mean for them.
If the new clause were accepted, that anxiety could be allayed on a wide scale. That would mean that anyone who has settled here—that would be most of the 5 per cent.—regardless of whether he came before 1973 or after 1973 or whether he came from the new Commonwealth as it is now constituted or from Pakistan, would be entitled to register automatically as a citizen of the United Kingdom. Such persons would not even have to have a period of residence. If they were here two months, they would be able to register as citizens on the commencement of this measure.
When I was first asked to consider nationality when I was a Minister, my view was that we should give citizenship automatically to everyone who was settled here, because that would have the reassuring effect for which I am arguing here. I was dissuaded from suggesting that because it meant for some people, such as those from India, who could not have dual nationality, that their rights as nationals in another country would have been taken away by the automatic nature of the Act when they might not have wished that. Therefore, it would be wrong automatically to make them British citizens if, for various reasons, they did not want to become British citizens.
The new clause meets that point. It says that it will be left to the individual to decide. Surely, that is the most effective way which we could devise for reassuring the minority community that their rights, entitlements and wishes to be a stable part of our community are safeguarded under the Bill.
If we were to pass the new clause, much of the anxiety which has been generated in this country about the Bill would be alleviated. For that reason, I suspect that we shall not pass it. It would go further than the Minister has wanted to go. However, the truth is that it would not hurt anyone if we passed it. Those people are settled here. That means that unless they commit an offence they cannot be sent away.
It is true that if those people went out of the country for more than two years they would lose that entitlement. However, they can safeguard that position by not going out of the country for more than two years. The fact is—it may be against what some hon. Members wish—that those people will remain here until the day they die if they want to do so. If that is so and they are working here, paying taxes and are part of the community, why on earth should we not allow them to become citizens here? Why should we not give them the automatic right which is included in the clause?
It would be reassuring for race relations in this country if those people could choose to be identified with us and to become part of our country. The right hon. Member for Down, South is always saying that they do not wish to do so. Here is yet another hon. Member who will say the same thing.

Mr. Mr. Nick Budgen: It would be much easier for those people if we did not retain a system of dual nationality.

Mr. Lyon: I shall be happy to argue the case on dual nationality when we come to that clause, which I think is about to be called.
If we pass the new clauses, those people would have the right to choose to become British citizens. It would be up to them whether they wanted so to choose. We shall come to the issue about dual nationality in due course. The hon. Gentleman knows my views on that.
If we want to put an end to the uncertainty in race relations in this country, this is the most effective way of doing that. I hope that the House will accept the clause.

Mr. Edward Lyons: The provision in the Bill which the new clause is designed to counteract provides that wives of British citizens shall be able to obtain British citizenship as of right without having to pass a language test or having to go through other paraphernalia. The effect of the Bill is to say for the first time—it was not so in 1948—that if wives who are in this country do not apply within five years of the date of the Act, they will have to pass a language test.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman may have the wrong new clause.

Mr. Mr. Lyons: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that I have. It refers to the wives of citizens of the Commonwealth or Pakistan who
shall be entitled on application for …registration as a British citizen,
provided that were settled in the United Kingdom at commencement. It covers clauses 5 and 7 and includes wives who are already settled here. They are given five years in which to apply for British citizenship.
Wives have always had the right to obtain citizenship by registration. That right will be withdrawn unless they comply with the requirements within five years. They have an accrued right. In Committee, the Government did not suggest that Britain had come to harm through wives of British citizens being able to obtain citizenship by registration.
As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) pointed out, if the Government attack an accrued right the suspicion arises that such rights are not sacrosanct. It is unsatisfactory for the Government to take away such a right.
The Government's original proposal in Committee was for a two-year grace period. As a result of an amendment tabled in the names of two Conservative Members and myself and supported by the official Opposition, the Government increased the period to five years. More than that, the Opposition, of virtually all shades, did not want the Government to take away any accrued rights. My amendment to extend the period to eight years was defeated.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would it not perhaps be helpful for the hon. and learned Gentleman to inform hon. Members who have not read the full proceedings in Standing Committee that an amendment in my name that would have preserved the accrued rights of all wives permanently was thrown out?

Mr. Mr. Lyons: The House has heard the right hon. Gentleman.
The new clause works mainly against wives. Since 1973, Commonwealth citizens who have come here have had to pass a language test, so there are fewer of them left to apply for British citizenship. Wives who have come here up to 1981 at present have the right to apply for citizenship and get it automatically if their husbands are British. Those who come here after the Bill becomes law will not have that right, and those who have the right and have not made use of it will have it taken away from them after five years.
At one time, the Government considered two years appropriate. That was the magic figure, although for South Africans it was eight years. They now agree that five years is appropriate. With the numbers involved, and accepting that accrued rights should remain, the Government should reconsider the matter and allow permanent rights to obtain citizenship to those who have an accrued right. Failing that, they should bring forward an amendment in the House of Lords to increase the limit from five to eight or 10 years.
If the Government interfere with accrued rights of minority groups in one respect, people will suspect that they may interfere with other accrued rights upon which they depend for their security.

Mr. Raison: In moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) seemed to argue that the purpose of the new clause was to remedy the loss of the indefinite right to register by certain groups, namely Commonwealth citizens settled here before 1973 and their wives. The new clause, however, goes well beyond that and would open up a whole new category of entitlement. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, in some ways it would be a negation of the purpose of the Bill.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) seemed to recognise that the new clause went far beyond what the hon. Member of Lambeth, Central implied but argued that we should nevertheless accept it on the ground that it would end the alarm that he believed had been created by the fact that the indefinite right to register would no longer exist. I cannot accept that argument. I believe that the alarm will die away as people understand the true nature of the legislation and that the claim is a temporary phenomenon largely produced by propaganda. I believe that as people come to live with the Act they will see the rubbish that has been talked about it for the rubbish that it is.
The hon. Gentleman should also recognise that in these matters it is not enough to think only of the interests of the ethnic minorities. They are very important, of course, and we have shown in Committee that we understand them because we have taken certain steps—not always popular ones—specifically designed to meet their anxieties. Nevertheless, I believe that if the new clause were accepted it would arouse a good deal of resentment among other people in the population and would not necessarily serve the cause of race relations in the way that the hon. Gentleman argued.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The Minister has again raised the question of propaganda, with the implication that certain individuals may be attempting to mislead certain groups. I must point out again that that is not so. If there is


misunderstanding, it is not all on one side. An academic born in Sri Lanka has recently been made chairman of a prominent Conservative group. It may be the Bow Group. He is under a total misapprehension about the Bill, because he really believes that it will affect the rights of Commonwealth citizens resident in this country to become Members of Parliament or serving officers in the British Army. If misunderstandings of that kind exist in the Minister's own party, how does he intend to clear them up?

Mr. Mr. Raison: I dare say that there are misunderstandings in my own party. I do not deny that for a moment. I know that the Bill, like all previous nationality legislation, is complicated. I never sought to conceal that throughout the Committee stage. My argument is that, with time, people will increasingly understand it and know the truth as opposed to the fiction of the matter and will come to recognise it as a statute of major importance that is completely fair and just.
The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central asked why we should take away these indefinite rights. On this, I echo what I said earlier to my hon. Friends in relation to amendment No. 89 because some of the arguments that I put then, although my hon. Friends did not entirely go along with them, apply in the same way to this issue.
The argument is essentially this. We believe that in due course we should move to a new scheme for the granting or award—however one likes to describe it—of citizenship. We believe that there should be a new structure for citizenship. That, in its essence, although not in its whole, means moving towards a system of naturalisation. If we maintain the existing situation indefinitely, we shall put off well into the next century the day when we arrive at the state of affairs which we believe to be right in this matter.
Both in the case of consular registration—which we argued about earlier—and in the case of entitlement to registration of Commonwealth citizens settled here before 1973 and of wives, we have adopted the view that it is right to have a five-year transitional period, during which the existing entitlements continue. In the case of Commonwealth citizens settled here before 1973 and of wives, that gives a fair opportunity to anyone who wishes to acquire citizenship. The five-year period will begin only at commencement. There will be a period between now and commencement. In addition, in almost every case such people have already had a substantial period in which to exercise that entitlement to register. Therefore, they are being given a fair opportunity. When we changed the extension from two years to five years we seemed finally to put paid to the argument that there was something unsatisfactory about the measure. On that point, we are acting entirely fairly.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: That argument would be understandable if the Minister had not introduced a new clause in Committee which gave an automatic right to citizenship—after five years—to citizens of dependent territories, British overseas citizens and British protected persons who have not yet arrived in Britain. Surely that undermines the hon. Gentleman's basic argument that we must create a symmetrical new edifice for the future.

Mr. Raison: We took a different view about citizens of the British dependent territories and others who fell

within the category of British citizenship, because they are slightly different. We are talking about Commonwealth citizens. We have close historic links with Commonwealth citizens, which we are anxious to preserve. Nevertheless, there was something special about the citizens of the British dependent territories. We saw a distinction between their status and that of Commonwealth citizens.
The new clause would mean that any Commonwealth citizen or citizen of Pakistan settled here immediately before commencement would be entitled for the rest of his or her life to British citizenship—and the right of abode in this country—on application whenever he or she chose. Where the person settled here was a man. his wife would also have an entitlement to British citizenship, and possibly—although I am not quite clear about the meaning of the clause—even if she had never been to this country. The children born abroad to such a person, after he or she had acquired British citizenship, would be British citizens too, and would have the right of abode here.
The measure would extend our citizenship and the right of abode very widely indeed. Any concept of a meaningful citizenship based on a real tie with this country would be very greatly diluted, particularly since a Commonwealth citizen, or citizen of Pakistan, settled here at commencement could have been resident here for only a limited time—in some cases, such as dependants, only a very limited time indeed. Provided that the citizen was settled at commencement, he could re-enter freely—for however long he might go away—for the rest of his life.
These arrangements are far more generous than those which other Commonwealth countries, to which people from this country might wish to go, would be prepared to extend. They are in many respects more generous than those for Commonwealth citizens in the British Nationality Act 1948, as originally introduced, and which reflected a very different relationship between this country and the members of the Commonwealth and Pakistan from that which prevails now.
As the hon. Member for York said, the British Nationality Act 1948 has in fact already been amended so that apart from those who are patrial, the only Commonwealth citizens who are currently entitled to registration are those who have been settled here since before 1973. In a sense, the amendment seeks to turn the clock back by conferring a similar entitlement on those who have been accepted for settlement since 1973, provided that they are still settled at commencement.
We have sought in clause 6 to ensure that those Commonwealth citizens who are settled here at commencement and who have an entitlement to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, should have these preserved for a transitional period, but it would not be right to go beyond this.
I turn to the position of people who lost their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies when the dependency from which they came became independent. The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central raised this point. I accept that there will be some people settled here from former dependencies who will have lost citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies when the dependencies from which they came here achieved independence. Others will lose citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if their dependencies become independent before the commencement of the Bill. Such people would not have been able to register before independence since they would have been citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies


already. Since losing that citizenship, however, I accept that they will have had less time in which to exercise their entitlement to register than those citizens of independent Commonwealth countries settled here since before 1973.
10.30 pm
The extension of the transitional period in which Commonwealth citizens with an entitlement to register may claim that entitlement will have greatly helped those people. That is one of the reasons why the Government accepted the amendment that lengthened the transitional period. It means that everyone from a Commonwealth country that achieves independence before commencement will, if settled here since before 1973, have five years at least in which to register. Those who are not settled before 1973 can still count any time here towards the qualifying period for naturalisation.
This leaves countries that achieve independence after commencement. It has hitherto been the effect of successive independence Acts that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who acquire the new citizenship lose our citizenship, and with it the right of abode here, if they have it. Clearly, the implications of the Bill will need careful thought when it comes to legislating for independence after the new nationality legislation comes into force, but the precise arrangements to be made can best be considered in the context of the independence legislation.
The question that the House has to answer is why all those settled CUKC or Commonwealth people here should have the automatic right to citizenship on commencement. It is not a question of simply continuing an existing entitlement. It is true that they have shown that they want to be here by virtue of the fact that they are settled here, although often for only a short while, but they do not meet the other criteria that we think appropriate for the granting of citizenship. They have no necessary intention to remain here, they will not have passed the language test, they will not have met the behaviour test and, in the case of Pakistanis, they will not have belonged to the Commonwealth for getting on for a decade. In many cases they will have been here for only a very short time.
All that does not add up to the kind of commitment to this country for which we are essentially looking in the conferment of citizenship, so the case for what would be a uniquely privileged position has not been made out by the Opposition, and I call on the House to reject new clause 5.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 289.

Division No. 196]
[10.32 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Adams, Allen
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Allaun, Frank
Campbell, Ian


Anderson, Donald
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Canavan, Dennis


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cant, R. B.


Ashton, Joe
Carmichael, Neil


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cartwright, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Beith, A. J.
Conlan, Bernard


Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood
Cook, Robin F.


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Cowans, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Craigen, J. M.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Crawshaw, Richard


Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)
Crowther, J. S.


Buchan, Norman
Cryer, Bob





Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lambie, David


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Deakins, Eric
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Dempsey, James
McCartney, Hugh


Dewar, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dixon, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Dormand, Jack
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Douglas, Dick
McNally, Thomas


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin


Dubs, Alfred
McTaggart, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Magee, Bryan


Dunn, James A.
Marks, Kenneth


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Eastham, Ken
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Maxton, John


English, Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Meacher, Michael


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Evans, John (Newton)
Mikardo, Ian


Ewing, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Field, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ford, Ben
Morton, George


Forrester, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Foster, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foulkes, George
O'Halloran, Michael


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
O'Neill, Martin


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Freud, Clement
Palmer, Arthur


Garrett, John(Norwich S)
Parker, John


George, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Penhaligon, David


Ginsburg, David
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gourlay, Harry
Prescott, John


Graham, Ted
Race, Reg


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Radice, Giles


Grant, John (Islington C)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Richardson, Jo


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)


Haynes, Frank
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rooker, J. W.


Heffer, Eric S.
Roper, John


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Home Robertson, John
Rowlands, Ted


Hooley, Frank
Ryman, John


Horam, John
Sandelson, Neville


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Sever, John


Howells, Geraint
Sheerman, Barry


Huckfield, Les
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Short, Mrs Renée


Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Skinner, Dennis


Janner, Hon Greville
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Soley, Clive


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Spearing, Nigel


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stallard, A. W.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Kerr, Russell
Stoddart, David


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Straw, Jack






Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Whitlock, William


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Thomas, Dr H. (Carmarthen)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Tilley, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Torney, Tom
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Winnick, David


Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)
Woodall, Alec


Wainwright, R. (Colne V)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)
Wright, Sheila


Watkins, David
Young, David(Bolton E)


Weetch, Ken



Welsh, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


White, Frank R.
Mr. James Tinn


White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
and Mr. James Hamilton.


Whitehead, Phillip





NOES


Adley, Robert
Dunlop, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dykes, Hugh


Ancram, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Arnold, Tom
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Elliott, Sir William


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Emery, Peter


Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Banks, Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bendall, Vivian
Farr, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fell, Anthony


Best, Keith
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Blackburn, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Blaker, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Body, Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Marcus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Fraser, Peter(South Angus)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fry, Peter


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brittan, Leon
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brotherton, Michael
Goodhart, Philip


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Goodhew, Victor


Browne, John(Winchester)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gorst, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gow, Ian


Buck, Antony
Gower, Sir Raymond


Budgen, Nick
Gray, Hamish


Bulmer, Esmond
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Grist, Ian


Butcher, John
Grylls, Michael


Butler, Hon Adam
Gummer, John Selwyn


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hamilton, Hon A.


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hannam, John


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Paul


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clegg, Sir Walter
Heddle, John


Cockeram, Eric
Henderson, Barry


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Cope, John
Hill, James


Corrie, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th"m)


Costain, Sir Albert
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Critchley, Julian
Hooson, Tom


Crouch, David
Hordern, Peter


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dover, Denshore
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)





Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Porter, Barry


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Prior, Rt Hon James


Kimball, Marcus
Proctor, K. Harvey


King, Rt Hon Tom
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Knox, David
Raison, Timothy


Lamont, Norman
Rathbone, Tim


Lang, Ian
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Latham, Michael
Renton, Tim


Lawrence, Ivan
Rhodes James, Robert


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lee, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Loveridge, John
Rossi, Hugh


Luce, Richard
Rost, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Royle, Sir Anthony


McCrindle, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacGregor, John
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Scott, Nicholas


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Madel, David
Shepherd, Richard


Major, John
Shersby, Michael


Marland, Paul
Silvester, Fred


Marlow, Tony
Sims, Roger


Marshall, Michael(Arundel)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Marten, Neil(Banbury)
Speed, Keith


Mates, Michael
Speller, Tony


Mather, Carol
Spence, John


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawby, Ray
Sproat, Iain


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Squire, Robin


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stainton, Keith


Mayhew, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mellor, David
Stanley, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stevens, Martin


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Moate, Roger
Stokes, John


Molyneaux, James
Stradling Thomas, J.


Monro, Hector
Tapsell, Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Moore, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Morgan, Geraint
Tebbit, Norman


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thompson, Donald


Mudd, David
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Murphy, Christopher
Thornton, Malcolm


Myles, David
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Neale, Gerrard
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


Needham, Richard
Trippier, David


Nelson, Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Neubert, Michael
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Newton, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Waddington, David


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Wakeham, John


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Page, Richard(SW Herts)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Parkinson, Cecil
Wall, Patrick


Parris, Matthew
Waller, Gary


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Walters, Dennis


Patten, John (Oxford)
Ward, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth


Pawsey, James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Percival, Sir Ian
Wells, Bowen


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Pollock, Alexander
Whitney, Raymond






Wickenden, Keith
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wiggin, Jerry



Williams, D. (Montgomery)
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant


Wolfson, Mark
and Mr. Anthony Berry.


Young, Sir George (Acton)

Question accordingly negatived

Mr. Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I understand that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) wishes to move new clause 7 and that it will be convenient for the House to take with it new clause 6—Provisions of section 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome —and the following amendments:

No. 21, in clause 9, page 8, line 43, at end insert—
`(c) or had the right of abode in a British Dependent Territory, to which the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, under Article 227(4), apply.'.

No. 86, in clause 46, page 34, line 32, at end insert 'and Gibraltar'.

No. 53, in page 35, line 24, after 'territory', insert
`and including any British Dependent Territory to which Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome applies.'.

No. 84, in Schedule 6, page 51, line 41, leave out 'Gibraltar'.

I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has agreed to this procedure.

New Clause 7

RIGHT TO REGISTRATION BY VIRTUE OF UNITED KINGDOM NATIONALITY FOR EUROPEAN COMMUNITY PURPOSES.

8A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part II of this Act a person who has a right of abode in a British Dependent Territory to which the provisions of Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome apply or who is a United Kingdom national for European Community purposes by virtue of the operation of Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome shall be entitled, on application, to be registered as a British Citizen.—[Mr. McQuarrie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I have to declare a special interest in the new clauses, because I have a Gibraltarian daughter-in-law and two of my grandchildren were born in Gibraltar. I also spent six and a half years in Gibraltar in a business capacity, erecting hospitals, schools, public buildings and Ministry of Defence and local authority housing. In that time I developed a deep affection for the people of Gibraltar, who were living under such difficult circumstances.
New clause 6 and amendments Nos. 21 and 53 are embodied in new clause 7, and I therefore propose to speak to that new clause and not to move new clause 6, a proposal which has met with the approval of Mr. Speaker.
New clause 7 seeks to grant to the people of Gibraltar the right to registration by virtue of the status that they now enjoy as United Kingdom citizens for European purposes. The acceptance of the new clause is essential if the House is to be seen to be safeguarding the interests of the Gibraltarians. It is accepted that they have the right of abode as Community nationals by virtue of the operation of article 227 (4) of the Treaty of Rome.
No other dependent territory is ever likely to achieve that status. That fully justifies the claim that Gibraltar

should be classed with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, the people of which will enjoy full British citizenship under the Bill. None of the other dependent territories will be affected if the new clause is accepted, as the present status of the Gibraltarians was granted when we entered the EEC because, even then, they were considered to be a much closer tie to Britain than were those in the Far East.
It is also accepted that successive British Governments have permitted Gibraltarians to enter and live in Britain and to be considered as equals when applying for employment in Britain. But that is only at the discretion of the Government of the day and can be removed at any time if circumstance in the United Kingdom are such that the continuation of the discretion is difficult or impossible to maintain.
The people of Gibraltar live in constant fear that existing rights will be removed. That fear is genuine when one considers that there is always the possibility of a future British Government withdrawing from the EEC, which would at once remove from the Gibraltarians the right to be United Kingdom citizens for Community purposes under article 227.
That fear has been expressed in Gibraltar by the Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, Mr. Peter Isola, the leader of the official Opposition, Mr. Joe Bossano, an independent Member of the House of Assembly, and all the other Members of the House of Assembly. It has also been expressed by trade unions, the chamber of commerce, the churches and the vast majority of the people of Gibraltar.
It was summed up conclusively by Mr. Sam Benady QC, the leader of the Bar in Gibraltar, who said in his address at the opening of the legal year in Gibraltar last year:
We have had many verbal assurances that the Gibraltarians would be afforded special treatment if they wish to enter, or reside, in the United Kingdom. These are mere assurances, but in law they have no right. Great Britain has said time and time again that it will sustain and support us, but I as a loyal British subject say to Britain—from these ancient benches of our Supreme Court—it is no use sustaining the body if you do not sustain the spirit".
Mr. Benady said that in 1970, repeated it in 1977 and said it again in 1980, but the cry has gone unheeded by successive Governments. It is for the Government to answer the call. To approve new clause 7 would cause no upset for any other dependent territory or to any independent State.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been made well aware of the deep feelings held by the vast majority of the people in Gibraltar that they should not be classified as citizens of the British dependent territories. Thousands of letters have been sent to my right hon. Friend from ordinary people in Gibraltar. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has been inundated with representations opposed to the Government's proposals. All have gone unheeded. The Government refuse to bend to meet the rightful request of these beleaguered people.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, in a circular sent to those who wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary protesting about the proposals, stated that the Government were aware of the strength of feeling in Gibraltar but felt bound to adhere to the view that
connections with Gibraltar should qualify people for citizenship of the British dependent territories and not for British citizenship.


Why should it be contrary to the purposes of the Bill to say that for historical or some other reasons people from one territory should be treated differently from the rest? It was a closing of the door completely when the Minister of State, in a letter of 19 February to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), stated that Gibraltar was not the only dependent territory for which people could make a claim for special treatment and that to make an exception would go a long way towards nullifying the whole idea of citizenship for dependent territories.
Even in that letter, the element of fear for the future held by the Gibraltarians was shown up when the Minister of State wrote that the fact that the Gibraltarians would become citizens of the dependent territories would not "materially" affect their existing position in relation to the United Kingdom. Yet he has stated consistently that the Gibraltarians would not be affected by the Bill. How does he, therefore, justify his remark that they will not be "materially" affected?
My hon. Friend the Minister of State concluded his letter by stating that he was convinced that the Government's proposals were on the right track. The proposals have been rejected totally by the people of Gibraltar as a sell-out and a reduction to second-class citizenship with no legal guarantees for the status that the Gibraltarians now enjoy.
It is not my intention to go over all the reasons to explain the depth of feeling that exists among hon. Members on both sides of the House that Gibraltar should be granted special consideration. These views were expressed on Second Reading and in Committee. I am anxious that as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible should be able to speak.
These new clauses, especially new clause 7, are not only supported by those whose names appear attached to mine. The clause was also supported when tabled on 20 May by my hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), Devon, West (Mr. Mills) and Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and also by the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) and the hon. Members for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) and Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin).
New clause 7, if accepted by the House, will give the Gibraltarians a right on application to be registered as British citizens. These two words "on application" mean that any person from Gibraltar can opt for British citizenship or retain his Gibraltarian status with the option to apply for Spanish citizenship in due course if that option is offered by the Spanish authorities. It must not be forgotten that for more than 270 years the Gibraltarians have been under British rule. They can never become independent even if they so wish.
There is no need to dwell on the hardships, abuses and difficulties inflicted on the people of Gibraltar since 1954. They are well known in the House and in the country. It is sufficient to say that the patriotism of the people of Gibraltar for their own city and for Britain was aroused to a degree never known before. In the 1967 referendum, 12,138 Gibraltarians voted in a poll of 95·8 per cent. for British sovereignty. Forty-four people voted to be linked with Spain. That position remains as strong today. While the majority of Gibraltarians work in harmony with Spanish people, they do not want Spanish citizenship.
The new clause will give them the right to choose. It will also remove from them the stigma which was placed on the people of Gibraltar when the Bill was published, when the Spanish newspapers reported that Gibraltar, on the passing of this legislation, would be nothing more than a colony of monkeys.
Shall we allow the Bill to be the final chapter in the long history that has existed between the Gibraltarians and the British people? "Solid as the rock" means more than just a piece of hard stone to the Gibraltarians. It means a steadfast determination never to give in. To the British people it is a symbol that nothing can be broken or disintegrate in their relationship with the people of Gibraltar.
If new clause 7 is not accepted, it will be to our undying shame that we have let down the people who are more British than the British, who served this country in its time of need through two world wars and who now look to this House to grant them the legal right to become British citizens if they so choose. That is what new clause 7 seeks to do.
All in Gibraltar and many hundreds of thousands of supporters of Gibraltar in Britain and overseas look to the Minister to accept this new clause. If he fails to do so, we shall divide the House in an effort to secure success for the desire of the Gibraltarians to remain first-class British citizens with legal rights.

Mr. Julian Amery: We are discussing a matter that touches a raw nerve, I think on both sides of the House. Gibraltar has been British longer than it was ever Spanish. It was Spanish during the time between the Moorish evacuation and the British conquest of the fortress, but it has been longer under our rule than it was under that of Spain. Historically, therefore, it is rather a special case.
As my hon Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) said, it is a special case in another sense, namely, that under the Treaty of Utrecht it can never become independent. It is not like other colonies, which have been decolonised. It exists solely by virtue of its connection with Britain.
In World War Two the great majority of the population was evacuated to Britain. We recognised then that kinship with us. I have had some connection with the Rock. As a serving officer in World War Two, I can say—I do not believe that any military historian will disagree—that we could not have won the war without Gibraltar. Without Gibraltar, we could never have had the landings in North Africa, and without those landings we could never have achieved the conquest of Italy and later the liberation of France. That is not unimportant, because the Franco regime, when in power, was benevolent in its so-called neutrality to our enemies.
Today, Gibraltar is part of the European Community. I agree that it has certain privileges, but it is part of that Community, as we are. Spain aspires to become a member.
My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have written to me saying that they will respect the opportunities that the Gibraltarians enjoy today to become full British citizens if they so wish. I believe that at present there is no wish to change the relevant regulations. The Gibraltarians do not want that as a privilege. They want it as a right. They deserve it as a right. What is the argument against? The European


Community gave Gibraltarians the right of abode after the Second World War and they staunchly voted for the British connection.
11 pm
I know the arguments that my right hon. Friend will deploy. He will say that it might open the floodgates to countless others. The example of Hong Kong will be thrown in our faces. I have a great regard for Hong Kong and its people. However, Hong Kong is different from Gibraltar. Hong Kong is not a member of the European Community. It is not a fortress which can never become independent. Indeed, we have to talk with the People's Republic of China about the future of Hong Kong, and we do so. The case of Hong Kong is the alibi which my right hon. Friend will probably wave in front of the House.
Anyone who has his ear to the ground in Whitehall knows that that is not the reality. The reality is the desire to appease the Spanish Government. I have always been a friend of Spain, under whatever regime. I love the Spanish people. Few of us would disagree that Spain is not a stable country. It had a dictatorship, which was stable but unfriendly. There is now a democratic experiment. We hope that it will succeed and survive. Things have happened in the Spanish Parliament which I pray to God will never happen in this Chamber. I talked to my friends in the police in the House on the night the Spanish Parliament was raided. They seemed a little amused at what was going on.
The Spanish Government defaulted on the pledge given to the Foreign Secretary about lifting the blockade. The blockade was a remnant of Franco's policies against us. Spain is applying to join the European Community. Its governing party wishes to join NATO. I should welcome Spain to both organisations. However, let us face it—they need us more than we need them.
Spain must accept the reality that in the foreseeable future the people of Gibraltar will want to remain British. It is idle to pretend otherwise. They deserve nationality and citizenship by right. I underline that. It is no use pussyfooting in the hope of achieving good will in Spain. On the contrary, if the House were to reject the new clause the impact on Gibraltar would be catastrophic. Perhaps it would not have mattered if the new clause had never been moved—but it has.
Sir Joshua Hassan and his colleagues have bent over backwards to try to help the Foreign Secretary out of the ridiculous dilemma on the horns of which he and his colleagues have impaled themselves by making it obligatory on the Gibraltarians to register—to take an active step—rather than be given what should have been given by any generous-minded British Government.
This is an occasion for us to recognise our debt to Gibraltar. We must recognise its special status as a European fortress and the right of its inhabitants, who are the basic garrison of the fortress, to be accepted as full British citizens. If they are given the option to register, which is proposed in the new clause, I can tell my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that few Gibraltarians will forgo the opportunity to proclaim their allegiance to Britain.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall not detain the House for long. I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), who has been a

most steadfast friend to Gibraltar ever since he entered the House and for a long time before. We must pay tribute to his work for Gibraltar.
It is a great pleasure for me to find myself following the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)—as I have done many times before and disagreed with his remarks—and realise that I have no disagreement with anything that he said. As a minority party Member, I want to make one thing quite clear. Whichever party—even if it were my own—introduced this legislation, I should vote against it. As the hon. Gentleman so clearly expressed, it is quite wrong that we in the House, with our long debt to and relationship with Gibraltar, should even contemplate what we are now doing. That must be wrong.
If a Labour Home Secretary had introduced this legislation, what would the Home Secretary be saying about it? I have no doubt that if a Labour Home Secretary introduced the same propositions, the right hon. Gentleman would oppose them passionately, strongly and fervently. I appeal to the sense of justice that I know he has deeply held and ask him to reconsider his position.
I know that the basic argument is that if we make an exception for Gibraltar, an exception will have to be made in another case. I do not accept that it is not possible for the House to make a reasonable accommodation for 30,000 people who have shown consistent loyalty to Britain throughout their history. I do not accept that that is not possible.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said that Gibraltar was a member of the European Community. Perhaps that is not directly relevant, but it is worth recording that Gibraltar does not benefit greatly from that. An article inThe Guardian on 14 May by Mark Arnold Forster clearly showed that British citizenship within the European Community did not benefit Gibraltarians. They had no opportunity to vote for anyone in the European Parliament—something that the French did not deny their colonies, nor did the Danes deny it to those who live in Greenland. We have already treated Gibraltar badly, and now we are treating it even worse.
Most hon. Members will have received a letter from the House of Assembly in Gibraltar. I apologise to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East for being slightly late for the beginning of his speech. He probably referred to that letter. He is shaking his head. I expect that a number of hon. Members received that letter, dated 28 May, jointly signed by Sir Joshua Hassan, the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the minority party, more or less saying "Please do not do this to us." In other words, the population of Gibraltar, whatever its political attitudes, is united in rejecting what is proposed to be done.
I think that everyone on both sides of the House regards the Home Secretary as a fair-minded and decent person. I say to him that it is clear beyond peradventure that unanimously the people of Gibraltar do not want us to do this to them. I therefore think that the House must not do it. It must accept the clause tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East.

Mr. Sir Bernard Braine: I join with the plea made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is indeed a fair-minded man. I hope that the debate will cause him to have second thoughts.
If there is one thing that I abhor it is injustice. If there is one thing for which the House stands, apart from exercising vigilance where the actions of Her Majesty's Ministers are concerned, it is redress of grievance. We are concerned here with an injustice.
That is a serious assertion; it deserves to be taken seriously. The position of the Gibraltarians is unique. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) reminded us, the Rock has been British for longer than it was ever under the crown of Spain. Gibraltarians are not Spaniards, although there has been some intermarriage over the centuries. They and their forebears have long been associated with the maritime defence and strategy of the United Kingdom. Many Gibraltarians have fought and some have died for this country in times of difficulty for us and for them. I think of events in the eighteenth century. I think of the senseless blockade by a Fascist dictator. Over the years Gibraltarians have looked to Britain for protection and have received it. They have made their own contribution to our common cause.
The Gibraltrians have not sought independence. They do not aspire to be members of the United Nations. The terms of the Treaty of Utrecht expressly debar them from seeking the goal of political independence. If there is to be any change of sovereignty in Gibraltar, Gibraltar must revert to the crown of Spain. For that reason alone its people are unique among the peoples of the remaining British dependent territories.
When the Gibraltarians have been given the opportunity to express their views about their future, they have done so emphatically and clearly. In 1967 there was the declaration by 12,138 votes to 44 in favour of being British rather than Spanish. Has there ever been such a clear-cut decision in any referendum that any hon. Member can recall?
The Gibraltarians are unique in another sense. It is precisely because of their link with the United Kingdom that they are regarded as an integral element in the European Community. They have a relationship with us which is similar to that of the Channel Islands and rather closer than that of the Isle of Man. One would have expected, therefore, some recognition of this uniqueness by the Government.
11.15 pm
I should like to have been a member of the Standing Committee, but I was not. I read what was said by hon. Members on both sides. The Government spokesman's argument for brushing aside the claims of Gibraltar and refusing any special concession was, I regret to say, about as unconvincing an argument as I have ever read. The argument seemed to be twofold. First, if such a concession were made to the 30,000 Gibraltarians it would cause resentment in the remaining dependent territories. Over 90 per cent. of the population in the remaining territories live in one territory—Hong Kong. That argument was dealt with effectively by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: It was not.

Mr. Sir Bernard Braine: No doubt my hon. Friend, who has interrupted from a seated position, will have an opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker,

and of convincing us of the counter-argument, which certainly did not convince anyone else in Standing Committee.
Where is the evidence for that counter-argument? Gibraltar already possesses a special status that no other dependent territory enjoys. Its citizens have an unrestricted right of entry to the United Kingdom now. What has happened to the argument that made that concession possible at a time when there were many more dependent territories than today?
The second argument of the Government spokesman was that it would be wrong not to include Gibraltar with other dependencies, and that they must all be treated alike. To do otherwise would be a break with the a major principle. It might be a break with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's love of tidiness and fear of creating a precedent, but it has nothing to do with principle.
Let us consider the extraordinary situation that we have allowed to develop, I prefer to think through a fit of absense of mind, rather than by deliberate intent. Gibraltarians already enjoy all the rights of other EEC citizens, save one. They have no representation in the European Parliament. They are the only EEC citizens without a vote in the elections for the European Parliament. The citizens of French Guiana, of Guadeloupe, Martinique, St. Pierre and Miquelon, and Reunion all have the right to exercise a vote for elections in the European Parliament. The citizens of Greenland form a constituency and have a right to elect a member to the European Parliament. Not Gibraltarians—they are in Europe, while French citizens in the Caribbean, in the Indian Ocean and off the St. Lawrence estuary and Greenlanders are not.

Mr. Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is not the situation made more absurd in that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not members of the European Community, whereas the people of Gibraltar are.

Mr. Sir Bernard Braine: Yes. As we consider the situation, it becomes stranger as we go along. My hon. Friend is right.
Where is the consistency, logic and morality of the position that we have allowed to develop with regard to the Gibraltarians, who are recognised by our EEC partners as citizens of the Community? We could choose to put the matter right by agreeing tonight to the new clause, advanced so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie). But until we do we in the House have no right to talk of principle and to condemn Gibraltarians to remain second-class citizens. We have no right to talk of principle and to reject their natural claim to be United Kingdom citizens. We have no right to ignore their special claims.
I believe that it was Renan who said that a people are what they believe themselves to be. The Gibraltarians chose long ago to be British. They practise a British style of democracy, in quiet contrast to the great country to the north of them. Their education system is linked with our own. Those of us who know the people of the Rock know that their loyalty is to Britain, and that they feel British. Who among us could receive the letter of 28 May from the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan, Mr. Peter Isola, the Leader of the Opposition, and Mr. Bossano the


leader of the third party in the Gibraltar Assembly and not fail to be moved by the sheer logic of its argument, and the strength of feeling and love for Britain that it revealed?
I submit that the House should reject the mean and dispiriting language of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in dealing with the just claims of the people of Gibraltar.

Mr. Tilley: As hon. Members said, in Committee the discussion on Gibraltar was part of the wider debate on the whole concept of citizenship of the British dependent territories, which we have not yet discussed on Report. I briefly remind the House that that is a new citizenship being created by the Bill, where the 17 remaining British colonies will share one citizenship. People in Hong Kong, the Pitcairn Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, which could hardly be more different geographically, historically, economically, and in their social and cultural patterns, will have a single citizenship.
It is worth repeating the point made in Committee. Both sides agree with the aim of the legislation to get rid of the ridiculous rag-bag citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies created in 1948, which is totally inappropriate these days. However, there is a serious danger of creating new anomalies and problems with the new rag-bag collective umbrella citizenship of the British dependent territories. We suggested in Committee that because of their different natures now and the likely pattern of different development over the next few years—indeed, over the next generation—there should be a separate citizenship for each colony for whom the Bill is supposed to be providing nationality guidelines.
First, I emphasise that we are not now discussing the question of splitting the citizenships of the dependent territories into individual citizenships. We are discussing the specific situation of Gibraltarians. We are not even discussing Gibraltar as a constitutional entity. New clause 7 does not change that at all. The relationship with Spain—the geo-political realities, to use the old Foreign and Commonwealth phrase—will not be changed by the clause. For that reason, I shall be advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.
However, we cannot support new clause 6 and the amendment that takes Gibraltar out of the citizenship of the dependent territories altogether and puts it into the British citizenship category, so that all Gibraltarians would be British citizens on day one. The amendment has implications not only for the all-important relationships with Spain, which we do not wish to disrupt, but for the 16 remaining colonies and, most of all and particularly, Hong Kong. We fully recognise the delicate position of Hong Kong. We do not want to make things worse for the people of Hong Kong, but, having considered the matter at length—I am sure the Government would say exhaustively—in Committee, we are convinced that new clause 7 would not affect the position of any other colony.
I repeat briefly the reasons why we believe that there is a case for special consideration for the Gibraltarians as individual people. First, it is geographically by far the nearest of the dependencies to the United Kingdom. Secondly, it is the only dependency for which independence is legally impossible because, under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht, if Britain gives up control of Gibraltar it returns automatically to Spain. Thirdly, it is the only dependency that is part of the EEC. The fact

that under the Treaty of Accession Gibraltarians are United Kingdom nationals for EEC purposes has already been mentioned. That, too, applies only to Gibraltar. Fourthly, Gibraltarians already have rights of entry into this country. We know from the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and earlier today that the Bill is largely about who shall have the right of entry and the right of abode and who shall not. Gibraltarians have those rights not only as EEC nationals but—and this has perhaps not been emphasised enough—by the assurances given by the Labour Government in 1968 by the then Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. Those four aspects are unique to Gibraltar.
I repeat that we do not propose to change the constitutional position of Gibraltar. A concession on citizenship is not the thin end of any wedge for full integration with Britain or any other change in the position of Gibraltar. For that reason, it should not upset people in Madrid or people in Hong Kong or any other dependent territory.
Perhaps I may pick up some of the points made by Conservative Members. I was grateful that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) mentioned that this was originally an all-party amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) had put their names to the original amendment. Indeed, although the impetus for this has come from all parts of the House, it seems to have come entirely from various parts of Scotland. The hon. Member referred to Joe Bossano as an independent member of the House of Assembly. He is in fact the leader of the Socialist Labour Party and a full-time officer of the Transport and General Workers Union. I should not wish the record to be wrong on that.
I turn to a point made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). I, too, read the article inThe Guardian, although I was not sure that not having an MEP might not in some ways be a blessing in disguise, but I should hate to suggest that that was in any way personal to him or, indeed, to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), who also intervened in the debate. Certainly, the hon. Gentleman was right when he said that the greatest pressure and expression of opinion was from Gibraltar. As a member of the Standing Committee I can certainly confirm that there were more letters, more concern and more delegations from Gibraltar than from all the other colonies put together and, indeed, in many ways from any other group even in this country.
I conclude by commenting on the speech of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who stressed the importance of Gibraltar in terms of our imperial history. I may not agree with the right hon. Gentleman on all analyses of the role and significance of the British Empire, but I remind Conservative Members that it seems that the old imperial maxim of "divide and rule" is being used today by the Government within this Chamber to set one group of Conservative Members against another. I suspect that the Hong Kong group has been stirred up to protect, as they are told, their interests against the Gibraltar group. I would simply advise all Conservative Members not to let themselves be used in that way. It did not work for long as a technique of imperial rule.
I suggest that hon. Members consider the merits of the issue and I hope that not only my right hon. and hon.
Friends but a majority of the House will support new clause 7, so that Gibraltarians as individuals are given the right, which we believe they have earned because of their unique position, to become British citizens if they so wish, as individuals.

Sir Paul Bryan: An impressive group of right hon. and hon. Members have put their names to the new clause. The group includes two former Ministers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Indeed, one of them is now the distinguished chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am, therefore, not surprised at their enthusiasm for Gibraltar or their wish to promote its interests.
However, I am surprised that with their Commonwealth background they do not realise the effect that the new clause may have on Hong Kong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) gave a moving account of the Rock of Gibraltar's role in our history. Like him, I served in the Mediterranean during the war, and I agree that we should not have been there had it not been for Gibraltar.
But let us also look at the slightly less glamorous future and at what Hong Kong provides us with now. A couple of months ago we got the biggest order in the history of British industry from Hong Kong. It will give work to thousands of people in this country for many years to come.
Let me explain the effect of the new clause on relations with Hong Kong. The people of Hong Kong did not want the Bill. They did not want any change in their status of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, despite its lack of any right of abode. They feared that any change would be for the worse. Indeed, it would have been for the worse had it not been for the important amendments moved in Committee by my right hon. Friend.
The fear experienced by the people of Hong Kong stems from a widely and genuinely held feeling—particularly among the young—that Great Britain is gradually distancing itself from Hong Kong. I explained the reasons for that on Second Reading. However, they have eventually been convinced by the Governor and by the Government that in placing Hong Kong in the new category of citizens of British dependent territories they are being treated exactly on a par with all the other dependent territories. They have received that promise and assurance from the Government. It is not only a matter of principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) said. A promise has been given, which will be broken if the new clause is passed.
If, at the eleventh hour, the clause is carried, what are we to say to the people of Hong Kong? If such a proposition had been put in the Bill's early stages, the people of Hong Kong would have claimed British citizenship just as the Gibraltarians are doing. If the new clause is accepted, there will be great pressure from the people of Hong Kong for them to be British citizens as well. What are we to say to the people of Hong Kong if the new clause is passed? Are we to say that Gibraltar is a special case? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In the eyes of the people of Hong Kong the opposite is true.
Gibraltar already has many enviable advantages. EEC status gives Gibraltarians easy entry into the United Kingdom, and work permits are available at will. That is denied to the people of Hong Kong. Gibraltarian students are classed as British, while Hong Kong students are treated as foreigners and have to pay much higher fees. I cannot overstress the sour impression that this has caused in Hong Kong, with its long tradition of British education.
If, in addition to those obvious advantages, Gibraltar is singled out from the dependent territories for British citizenship, a promise will have been not only broken but broken without a single mitigating circumstance.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I shall detain the House for only a few minutes. Everything has been said by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) and by other hon. Members. I have been persuaded partly because representations have been made to me by Sir Joshua Hassan, by Peter Isota and by Joe Bossano, of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Indeed, Mr. Bossano is also leader of the Labour Party in Gibraltar. I have had representations from many people, and I understand their thoughts and views very well.
I make this appeal to the Home Secretary. He must not only consider the attitude of mind and the views of those important people in Gibraltar and of all Gibraltarians. He is also under a serious obligation to consider the views of the people who live in this country. I am not in favour of referendums in general terms and would not seek to persuade him to have a referendum on this issue, but if we were to ask the people of this country what they would like to do, I believe that they would want to give the Gibraltarians the rights that we would propose to give them in new clause 7.
It is not too late for the Home Secretary to listen to the views of Opposition Members and of his hon. Friends. We know that the Home Secretary is a very important member of the Government. He can change the brief. That is something that Under-Secretaries of State cannot do. He has heard the views expressed from both sides of the House appealing to him to change his mind. He is a big enough man, having heard these views, to change his mind and to do so quickly.

Sir Nigel Fisher: I have just returned from a week in Gibraltar, where deep and genuine anxiety about the Bill is not just widespread but universal. Business men, politicians of every party and the proverbial man in the street are all united in their fears and apprehensions.
I do not believe that Gibraltar's interests are in practice prejudiced by the Bill. I tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade all the people that I talked to that their fears are groundless. It is not that they question the good faith of the British Government today. They do not. Their fears are for the future. They know that the Foreign Office, under any Government, would like to establish better relations with Spain. They know that Gibraltar is an obstacle to better relations with Spain, and that at some future date this might become a problem for Britain, with the danger that, to placate Spain, Gibraltar might be sacrificed.
I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), who is not in his place tonight, will not think me uncharitable if I say that his recent comments, made publicly in Gibraltar and in Spain, added fuel to the fears of the Gibraltarians. He said:
Why should 20,000 Gibraltarians stand in the way of the interests of 36 million Spaniards and 50 million Britons?


That remark sent a shiver down every Gibraltarian back, and it was quoted to me in Gibraltar last week again and again.
The Gibraltarians know that our resolve to support and sustain Gibraltar is implemented by Ministers on an administrative basis, and they are genuinely afraid that a future British Government might be tempted to improve its relations with Spain—perphaps through the Lisbon agreement—by abandoning Gibraltar. I tried to allay these fears because I do not believe that any British Government would let Gibraltar down. But the people there would feel much safer and much more secure if there were a statutory guarantee such as is suggested in new clause 7. That could not be interpreted in any other colony as discrimination in favour of Gibraltar, because no other colony has Gibraltar's special—indeed, unique—status under article 227 of the Treaty of Rome, through which Gibraltarians are United Kingdom nationals for EEC purposes.
That is the basis of their entitlement to special treatment, and it is unlike the position of any other colony. But apart from the European status, no other dependent territory has ever challenged the favourable treatment that Gibraltar has always enjoyed. It has never been invoked as a precedent by anybody else, so I do not think it could or would be used, for instance, in Hong Kong or even in the Falkland Islands, which I also support.
Nor are British interests affected in any way because there has been no immigration of numerical significance from Gibraltar to Britain at any time nor will there be in the future. In practice, therefore, no problem arises either for Britain or for Gibraltar. The problem in Gibraltar is, quite simply, psychological. All her institutions are British; her system of government, her judicial system, her public services, her educational system, her police force and even her radio and television services are all modelled on ours. Many of her trade unions are branches of trade unions in Britain, and, of course, her imports and tourists are almost entirely from this country.
There is one other point that I should like hon. Members to bear in mind. The people of Gibraltar have been under British rule and British protection for 270 years during which we have built up and used Gibraltar for our defence purposes, despite which the people still like us very much, which is rather warming and unusual in the modern world. It is no longer fashionable to talk of patriotism but people of my generation remember the days when the red on every school atlas and the power of the British Navy made us proud to be British.
Gibraltar remains as a reminder of those days. It has a special place in the hearts of English people, just as Britain has a special place in the hearts of every Gibraltarian, so this debate is really about people and how they feel. I understand very well how the Gibraltarians feel. I know how let down they would feel if their friends in this House did not support them. It is for that reason that I must, for the first time since about 1965, vote against my party in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sure every hon. Member will appreciate that the motives behind those who have supported the new clause are none other than the deep affection and loyalty felt by everyone in the House and in the country towards the people of Gibraltar. I was shocked to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) quoting remarks made by the hon. Member for

Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). I am sure that those remarks will be repudiated by every hon. Member, from whichever side of the House he may come.
Many hon. Members have referred to the importance of the relationship with Spain. The right hon. Meraber for Down, South (Mr. Powell), speaking in Committee, said that if the purpose of the new clause was carried through it would not make a significant difference to any future decision that the people of Gibraltar might take about their status or whether that might even mean a move towards Spain. He was probably right in saying that.
The only small contribution that I can make to this debate is to say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that he frequently protests to us late at night when orders are laid separately for Irish business instead of being included in general legislation.

Mr. Stanbrook: Northern Irish.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sorry; I should have said for Northern Irish business. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) immediately corrected me when I said "Irish" rather than "Northern Irish" business. The reason why the right hon. Member for Down, South is so assiduous in doing that, and the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington rightly picks me up on the point, is that that is perceived in Northern Ireland as affecting its position in the United Kingdom. Many of us may think that they are making niggling points. We know that the House is at one in wishing to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland is part of it. They know that a slight slip-up of the kind I have just committed can be perceived in Northern Ireland as undermining the closeness and unity of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom.
I am utterly convinced that the commitments that the Gibraltarians have had from this House as outlined particularly in the Gibraltar Constitution Order 1969 are copper-bottomed, and any acceptance of the clause would be perceived by the Spanish people as a move to thwart the warm and cordial relations now being built up between our two countries. Therefore, I urge the House to reject the clause.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have sought to take as little time as I can to give as many of my hon. Friends as possible a chance to speak. I hope, therefore, that I may be given the chance to make what is not a very easy speech, and that my hon. Friends will do me the courtesy of listening carefully to what I have to say, even where they may not wholly accept the position.
The clause was moved with great passion and feeling, which I fully appreciate, by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie). As he said, it would not remove Gibraltar from the ambit of British overseas citizenship. Rather, it would entitle a citizen of the British dependent territories from Gibraltar to have British citizenship if he asked for it. The clause does this by enabling those who have the right of abode in a dependent territory to which article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome applies, and those who are United Kingdom nationals for European Community purposes through their links with such a territory, to be entitled to acquire British citizenship on application. Those who would benefit from the amendment would not have to meet any residence


requirements and would be free to acquire British citizenship and the right of abode, without ever setting foot here and without, indeed, having any personal ties with this country.
In seeking to make a more coherent and logical system of citizenship, as we explained in the White Paper that we published last year, we were influenced by the argument that the status of the remaining dependencies should be positively recognised in citizenship terms. That is why we have created a separate citizenship of the British dependent territories, which is to be held by those who have ties with the dependencies and will be an accurate reflection of their status. It is not a second-class citizenship. We regard it as a parallel status to British citizenship, held on like terms.
Having created this citizenship, I believe that it would be wholly unacceptable to exempt one dependency from it. That is precisely the sort of anomaly that we sought to erase in the Bill in the first instance. The clause would make an exception for one dependency, which would lead to demands for others, which could scarcely be resisted.
Some of my hon. Friends, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), say that anyone who has his ear to the ground in Whitehall knows that this is all to do with Spain and nothing to do with Hong Kong. I find it surprising, though I suppose I must accept it if my right hon. Friend says so, that I do not have my ear to the ground in Whitehall. At least I have a voice that is heard in Whitehall. I make it heard, and I also hear what is said, because I listen sometimes. I tell my right hon. Friend quite categorically that the attitude that I am taking tonight has nothing whatsoever to do with Spain or with the Spanish position on Gibraltar. My right hon. Friend smiles, but he should recognise that, as Home Secretary, I am interested in the Bill. Of course, I have a collective responsibility with the Foreign Secretary, but this is my Bill and I have taken responsibility for it.
Let me explain why I think that exempting one dependency would be difficult and would raise questions from others. It would be impossible to explain to the Falkland islanders why they were not being made British citizens when the Gibraltarians were acquiring that status. My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) said that he had great affection for the Falkland islanders and I have no doubt that it would be difficult to explain the difference in status to them.
It is no good anyone telling me that the people of Hong Kong would not demand similar treatment if we accepted the new clause and would not be deeply resentful if they did not get it. I know that they would, because they have told me so. In that case, I had my ear to the ground and I heard them say it. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion will accept that I heard them correctly. It is important to accept that some other dependencies would also be resentful.
If we gave way to other dependencies, we would be back to where we are now, with an unsatisfactory position. Alternatively, we would have a new British citizenship with immigration commitments for the future which, I am sure, nearly every hon. Member would regard as unacceptable. It is important that I say that to the House. That is why I do not believe that we should give way on the amendments.
I accept that my hon. Friends have made an excellent case and I accept their emotional arguments. The hon.

Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said that if I were in Opposition listening to a Labour Minister arguing against the new clause I would oppose him passionately. That must be a hypothetical argument, but I doubt whether it is true, because, surprising though it may seem—some people may think that I get very excited from time to time—I am not swayed by emotion on these issues to the extent that some might expect. The argument that if we gave way to one dependency we would be forced to give way to the others—with unacceptable immigration problems—is correct.
I find it hard to accept the argument of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) that new clause 7 would be easier for Hong Kong to accept than would new clause 6. The same problem would arise with either clause.
I have explained the simple and straightforward reasons why I cannot advise the House to accept any of the amendments to give Gibraltar a special position, but I fully understand the views put on behalf of the people of Gibraltar and I find it difficult to take the view that I have expressed. However, I am convinced that I should be wrong and irresponsible in the long run to take any other position.
I should make it clear that the creation of a citizenship of the British dependent territories does not alter our relationship with those territories. My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton was fair enough to point out that he does not believe that the fears understandably felt in Gibraltar are full of sound sense. My hon. Friend believes that they are prejudiced in some way and that they are not genuine.

Mr. Russell Johnston: rose——

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry; I shall not give way. I am trying to finish my speech before 12 o'clock. I do not see why I should show any preference to the hon. Gentleman in giving way.
The Government have given specific assurances to Gibraltar. There is no question of the administrative concession that enables Gibraltarians to enter the United Kingdom freely being withdrawn as a result of the Bill. That concession is not affected by the Bill. Gibraltar has been give that assurance. We have made it clear that we intend to ensure that rights now enjoyed by the people of Gibraltar as part of the European Community should continue. Even if the circumstances that led to the administrative concession for Gibraltarians to enter the United Kingdom were to alter, we have made it clear that we do not foresee that Gibraltarians would normally face any difficulty in entering the United Kingdom as they wish.
I believe that these are important assurances. It is right that I should give them. Having made those points, I give way to the hon. Member for Inverness.

Mr. Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he founds the whole of his case on the problem of the large population of Hong Kong. That is an inadequate response to the argument made on behalf of smaller dependencies.

Mr. Whitelaw: In my time in public life I have heard a great many arguments that a special case can be made which is not really a special case and that it will have no effect on the principle or associated problems. I do not


accept that a special case can be made for Gibraltar without the consequences in relation to Hong Kong that I have outlined. That is why I oppose making a special case.

Mr. Amery: Will my right hon. Friend take the debate seriously? Two points that have been raised are that Gibraltar is part of the European Community and that as a fortress it can never become independent. Will my right hon. Friend address himself to those matters?

Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that my right hon. Friend is not suggesting that I do not take the debate seriously. I do, most certainly. I have made it clear why I do not believe that I could conceivably allow the House to accept the new clause, with the consequences that I believe would ensue.
I understand the arguments put by my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members for making Gibraltar a special case. I do not believe, however, in the context of the Bill, that a special case can be conceded without consequences for Hong Kong that I cannot recommend the House to accept. That is the burden of my case. On that basis, I must ask the House to reject the clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 273.

Division No. 197]
[11.57 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Davis, Clinton(Hackney C)


Adams, Allen
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Allaun, Frank
Deakins, Eric


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)


Anderson, Donald
Dempsey, James


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dewar, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dixon, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Dormand, Jack


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Douglas, Dick


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Dubs, Alfred


Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Dunlop, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunn, James A.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunnett, Jack


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eadie, Alex


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Eastham, Ken


Brotherton, Michael
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
English, Michael


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, John (Newton)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Ewing, Harry


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Farr, John


Campbell, Ian
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Cant, R. B.
Flannery, Martin


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Carmichael, Neil
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ford, Ben


Churchill, W. S.
Forrester, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Foster, Derek


Conlan, Bernard
Foulkes, George


Cook, Robin F.
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Cowans, Harry
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Craigen, J. M.
Freud, Clement


Crawshaw, Richard
Fry, Peter


Crouch, David
Garrett, John(Norwich S)


Crowther, J. S.
George, Bruce


Cryer, Bob
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ginsburg, David


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Gourlay, Harry


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Graham, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)





Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Parker, John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parry, Robert


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Penhaligon, David


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Haynes, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Prescott, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Race, Reg


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Radice, Giles


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Home Robertson, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Hooley, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Horam, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howells, Geraint
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Huckfield, Les
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Janner, Hon Greville
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowlands, Ted


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ryman, John


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sever, John


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Short, Mrs Renée


Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Kinnock, Neil
Smith, Cyril (Rochdaln)


Lambie, David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Latham, Michael
Soley, Clive


Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Leighton, Ronald
Spriggs, Leslie


Lestor, Miss Joan
Stallard, A. W.


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Litherland, Robert
Stoddart, David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Straw, Jack


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McCartney, Hugh
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McKelvey, William
Tilley, John


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tinn, James


McNally, Thomas
Torney, Tom


McNamara, Kevin
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McTaggart, Robert
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Magee, Bryan
Wainwright, H. (Colne V)


Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Marlow, Tony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Wall, Patrick


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Watkins, David


Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)
Weetch, Ken


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Welsh, Michael


Maxton, John
White, Frank R.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Whitehead, Phillip


Meacher, Michael
Whitlock, William


Mikardo, Ian
Wigley, Dafydd


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Molyneaux, James
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Morgan, Geraint
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Winnick, David


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Winterton, Nicholas


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wolfson, Mark


Morton, George
Woodall, Alec


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Woolmer, Kenneth


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Young, David(Bolton E)


O'Halloran, Michael



O'Neill, Martin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Albeit McQuarrie


Palmer, Arthur
and Mr. Neville Sandelson 






NOES


Adley, Robert
Fox, Marcus


Aitken, Jonathan
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Alexander, Richard
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Ancram, Michael
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Arnold, Tom
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Baker, Kenneth (St M'bone)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Goodhart, Philip


Banks, Robert
Goodhew, Victor


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair


Bendall, Vivian
Gorst, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gow, Ian


Best, Keith
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gray, Hamish


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Blackburn, John
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Blaker, Peter
Grist, Ian


Body, Richard
Grylls, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gummer, John Selwyn


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Graham
Hannam, John


Brittan, Leon
Haselhurst, Alan


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hastings, Stephen


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hawkins, Paul


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hawksley, Warren


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayhoe, Barney


Buck, Antony
Heddle, John


Budgen, Nick
Henderson, Barry


Bulmer, Esmond
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hicks, Robert


Butcher, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butler, Hon Adam
Hill, James


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hooson, Tom


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hordern, Peter


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Cockeram, Eric
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Cope, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Corrie, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Costain, Sir Albert
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cranborne, Viscount
Kershaw, Anthony


Critchley, Julian
Kimball, Marcus


Dickens, Geoffrey
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knox, David


Dover, Denshore
Lamont, Norman


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lang, Ian


Durant, Tony
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Eggar, Tim
Lee, John


Elliott, Sir William
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Emery, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, lan (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Loveridge, John


Fell, Anthony
Luce, Richard


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lyell, Nicholas


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
MacGregor, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Forman, Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)





McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Rost, Peter


Madel, David
Royle, Sir Anthony


Major, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Marland, Paul
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Scott, Nicholas


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Mates, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Mather, Carol
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mawby, Ray
Shepherd, Richard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shersby, Michael


Mayhew, Patrick
Silvester, Fred


Mellor, David
Sims, Roger


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Speed, Keith


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Speller, Tony


Miscampbell, Norman
Spence, John


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Monro, Hector
Sproat, Iain


Montgomery, Fergus
Squire, Robin


Moore, John
Stainton, Keith


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Stanley, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stevens, Martin


Mudd, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Murphy, Christopher
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Myles, David
Stokes, John


Neale, Gerrard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Needham, Richard
Tapsell, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Newton, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thompson, Donald


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Thornton, Malcolm


Parkinson, Cecil
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Parris, Matthew
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Trippier, David


Patten, John (Oxford)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Percival, Sir Ian
Waddington, David


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wakeham, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pollock, Alexander
Walker, B. (Perth)


Porter, Barry
Waller, Gary


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Walters, Dennis


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Ward, John


Prior, Rt Hon James
Warren, Kenneth


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wells, Bowen


Raison, Timothy
Wheeler, John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Whitney, Raymond


Renton, Tim
Wickenden, Keith


Rhodes James, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rifkind, Malcolm



Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Wyn(Conway)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Roper, John
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Rossi, Hugh

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Twelve o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned pursuant to Order 129 April].

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Animal Health Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is a strict consolidation measure which brings together the legislation primarily concerned with the entry and movement of animals in circumstances that might result in the introduction or spread of animal diseases. As one look at schedule 6 to the Bill—a schedule of repeals—will show, it is perhaps surprising how many different enactments relate to the subject. It is useful for practitioners to have all the statutes drawn together by this consolidation measure.
A point arose in Committee about the substitution of metric measurements for imperial measurements. I have given the details to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who took an interest in the matter. I shall be happy to give the same details to any other hon. Member. I shall content myself with that brief explanation and commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I rise briefly to draw the attention of the House to what I consider to be a thoroughly unsatisfactory position which arose in Committee. To my knowledge, the House has never taken a vote in support of metrication. It has taken votes in support of decimalisation but has never dabated fully and considered as a question of principle whether it is advisable or desirable for us to substitute metrication measures for imperial measures, which the House has hitherto advocated and supported in legislation.
An exception is that provision has been made in a number of statutes for orders to be laid if necessary, in certain circumstances, for the substitution of metrication in certain parts of Bills. It is under that heading that two parts of this consolidation measure have been added to by metrication in parts of clauses. That arises in respect of references to a pony's height in hands, the offence of throwing a diseased carcase in the sea within three miles of the shore, the increase of a fine related to every additional half a ton and the definition of a pony by reference to height in hands.
These are all insignificant matters and no doubt it is eminent common sense to make the changes that are in the Bill. However, by a process of introducing regulations and statutory instruments we have incorporated what to my mind are substantial changes in principle into the law of the land. We have metricated through the back door, as it were.
The fault lies with the House in the sense that it has made provision for metrication by regulation. It is the fault of the House also for allowing this to happen because regulations are laid at late hours and nobody pays very much attention to them. One regulation was laid in September 1980 and was not prayed against because nobody noticed it. When the second of the regulations was laid in January or February, I noticed it and I went to the Public Bill Office. I gave notice that I sought, with certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to pray against it. By an error that sometimes arises in the best ordered of families, the prayer was never tabled. That was not my fault. I think that it has been accepted to have been an error

of the administration. Therefore, the second regulation was not prayed against and an opportunity for the House to take a view on whether we should metricate by regulation or by statutory instrument was missed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not go into the question whether we should metricate. This is a consolidation measure.

Mr. Lawrence: I shall try, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to stick as closely as I can to the rules.
Before a consolidation measure passes through the House, we should consider whether it is right not only to consolidate legislation that has already been established on the statute book but to add to that legislation regulations and statutory instruments and to consolidate those. As a question of law, I am convinced—I have been in correspondence with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General—that it is proper to consolidate a statutory instrument. However, I am not convinced that it is desirable to metricate when nobody knows that we are doing so and before the House has taken a vote on the principle.
If the House were to wake up tomorrow morning to find that we had metricated, by however small a measure, that would be the thin end of the wedge. I think that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would be annoyed, irritated and perhaps even angry. It seems that the procedures of the House have allowed this to happen, and I cannot do more than speak against it. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory. I hope that it will never happen again. I hope that we shall be vigilant with the orders that are laid before the House to ensure that statutory instruments are not used to add to existing legislation, and as a fait accompli to come before the House late at night to say that we are consolidating a measure within the law perfectly properly as the rules allow, only to find that we have done something to which a large proportion of the House would take great exception.

Mr. Peter Archer: If I were going to be jumped by anyone, I could not wish it to be anyone other than the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I am not sure that I follow everything that he put before the House tonight. It would please me if I thought that in future we would not go metric, as I am sure that I will not go to my grave translating kilometres into miles and kilograms into pounds.
We should pay attention to the Committee's report to this extent. This matter was referred to by the Solicitor-General. The effect of the legislation when we go metric is that a round figure must be translated. At present, it is translated literally. Therefore, in the clauses referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Burton there are references to casting a corpse into the sea within 4.8 km of the shore. Clause 41 speaks of ponies 122 cm and 107 cm in height. Clause 75 speaks of calculating a fine in multiples of 50 lb for every 508 kg.
I understand that at present there is nothing that the Committee can do except approve translations that are literal in that way. Clearly, if we are going to go metric it is better that round figures should be translated into round figures. Otherwise, our statutes will be even more difficult and complicated than they are already.
As usual, the Opposition welcome any measure of consolidation and law reform. Therefore, I am content to leave the matter there tonight. I hope that the Solicitor-General can give us an assurance, if not on the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Burton and in general about the future of metrication when we consolidate statutes, that when we incorporate metrication into statutes, at least, we do it in sensible and understandable figures.

The Solicitor-General: I am happy to add a word on the points that have been raised. There has been some misunderstanding about what happened. The Committee erred for once in thinking that the conversions were made in the Bill. They were not. The conversions were made by statutory instrument under section 7 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Those statutory instruments brought about the conversion.
I have been here long enough to know the difficulties to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred. So many things are going through the House that we cannot spot them all. The fact is that there they are. Everything is done openly and there is an opportunity to pray against such measures. They cannot be done by primary legislation, which would ensure that they were brought before the House. There are not enough hours in the day to do that. I am aware of the difficulty here. It may be that that matter will have alerted those who are interested in the subject to look out for further statutory instruments which make conversions into metric quantities. I drew attention to that.
It is important to realise that the conversion is not done under this consolidation measure, nor is it done under the measures that are consolidated in the Bill. The conversions were made by statutory instrument under section 7 of the 1976 Act. Once the conversions have been made by statutory instruments the statutes that are being consolidated are amended and the consolidation can include only the new quantities.
On the rounding up, there is one figure here which, if it had been taken literally, would have extended to six figures on the right hand side of the decimal point. I am not too good at metrication, and I do not mind admitting it. There has been an element of rounding up. In each case there would be at least two figures after the decimal point if it were done strictly, but section 7(3) of the 1976 Act permits rounding up, but only within narrow limits.
My hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) will be glad of this assurance. In every case, the rounding up has been done in such a way as never to extend the scope of a criminal offence—because these figures all relate to criminal offences. Where the choice has been between rounding up in a way that would extend the scope of criminal offences and rounding up in a way that would not, the draftsman has always taken the second course. None of the rounding up has extended the scope of any criminal offence. That is the best that the draftsman and all concerned in the consolidation can do in the circumstances. I hope that that will help to reassure my hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for the assurances that he has given, but the assurance that I really want is that before the Government introduce legislation—which is what they are doing in this consolidation Bill—where they must know that the House is fundamentally concerned with an issue, they will alert the House. It would have been better had they said here that the Bill was a matter of metricating, on which feelings run deep, and perhaps we might have had an opportunity to debate metrication rather more fully. As far as I know, nothing was said in relation to the regulations.
Although I accept completely and utterly the Government's bona fides in this matter, the complete propriety of everything that is done and the complete consistency of the regulations, I merely ask my hon. and learned Friend to give an assurance that, if the situation arises again, the Government will alert the House to the dangers of what is happening, knowing that the House might feel strongly about the issue.
The Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend must realise that although some people feel strongly about metrication, others do not give a hoot about it and yet others believe that it is a very good thing. Almost everything that the Government do is of great concern to some people and to others of no concern at all. I cannot give an assurance that the Government will say that a matter is of particular concern so that they will alert those interested. Our system—I have acknowledged its deficiencies—is that certain things must be done by statutory instrument, and statutory instruments are available for all to see. I do not underestimate the difficulty of following them all, but that is what we have to do to the best of our ability. I cannot give an assurance of the kind for which my hon. and learned Friend asks.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3)(i) of Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c), the Customs Duties (Quota Relief) (Paper, Paperboard and Printed Products Order 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 1884) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

LIAISON COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That the Order of 31 January 1980 relating to the nomination of the Liaison Committee be amended by leaving out Sir John Langford-Holt and inserting Mr. Cranley Onslow.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Warrant Sales

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. James Dempsey: I preface my remarks by thanking Mr. Speaker most gratefully for the opportunity given to me to raise this sensitive matter even at this early hour of the morning. I felt compelled to do so after listening to a reply from the Solicitor-General for Scotland to a question that I raised only a few weeks ago.
The Solicitor-General said in his reply that so far as he was aware the bargain basement prices to which I referred and the market prices were the same. It is because there is such a substantial difference between bargain basement prices and market prices, arising out of the procedure known as warrant sales, that I sought to raise the matter today. I am advised that I may talk about the impact of legislation but not about the legislation itself, and I do not intend to do so.
I believe that the Solicitor-General must have been under a considerable misapprehension to make the statement that he made on that occasion. When a warrant sale is granted by the sheriff court, the sheriff's officers come to the home after advertising the sale and they poind, to use a Scottish word, the different items and price them. Their only concern in pricing them is to ensure that the global sum required to pay the debt owed by the debtor shall be recovered. In the pricing of the items, there is no relation whatever to the actual price that would be obtained on a fair market.
I have studied this matter for many years. Having been brought up in the distributive trade, I hope that the Minister will respect the knowledge that I have gained as a result of practical experience during my working life in dealing with this problem.
To give the House some indication of what is involved, I decided to look back at some of my notes and some of the events that I had noted. As I wished to give as clear a picture as possible of what the debate involved, I decided to relate the percentages of the original costs for which items were sold in warrant sales. For example, a 4-yd by 3-yd carpet was sold at 16 per cent. of the cost paid by the debtor involved. A three-piece suite and a gas cooker were sold at 12·5 per cent. of their original cost. A television set was sold at 11 per cent. of its original cost. A washing machine and a hearth rug were sold at 8 per cent. of their original cost. I have mentioned only a few items. I could cite double or treble that number of items from my experience of the injustice imposed on the unfortunate debtor as a result of this procedure. Sheriffs' officers are concerned only with getting sufficient money from the items to pay the debt.
In one case—well known to me—a person received a warrant sales notice for £300. The sheriff's officers moved in. They itemised enough commodities in the man's small business to raise £300. After they had done so, the individual involved brought in valuers to estimate the value of the goods and effects pounded by the sheriff's officers. The value turned out to be not £300 but slightly over £3,000. That is 10 times as much. Therefore, the sheriff's officers are not qualified to deal with the pricing of household goods. They are not employed in that trade. For long and wearily I have felt that auctioneers should be

brought in in such circumstances. They should auction the items, because they would get a fair return for the items which bore more relation to their price.
As a member of Lanark county council, I know that we had our own sheriff's officer. I spoke to his assistant only this week. He assured me that in his 15-year association with the sheriff's officers' department the goods arid household effects of debtors had been substantially underestimated by sheriff's officers in warrant sales. As a result, the sheriff's officers' employed by the county council constantly used to call the auctioneer. It was possible not only to pay the debtor from the sale of the goods but to pay the auctioneer's fees and the cost of transport whilst still retaining a surplus. The surplus was then handed to the unfortunate debtor as a bonus.
I appeal to the Minister to consider that aspect of the case and to remember that no country within the EEC adopts that system. Indeed, England and Wales do not even use that system. In England and Wales, through the bailiff arrangements, auctioneers are brought in to auction the goods to ensure that the unfortunate debtor gets a fair deal and a fair return for the goods and household effects that he has sacrificed in trying to pay his debts.
There is one way, without legislation, in which the scale of the problem could be reduced, and I ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland to use his good offices to prevail upon the credit concerns to curb the enthusiasm of the slick doorstep salesmen who prevail upon naive and weak-willed housewives to accept credit facilities beyond their ability to pay. If he could curb that activity, it would reduce the need to rely on the warrant sales procedure. The amount or irrecoverable debt would then be minimal and could easily be absorbed in the trading account of an undertaking.
Throughout my earlier life I was involved in a large-scale credit undertaking, and never once did we have to adopt the iniquitous practice of warrant sales. I hope that the Minister will take appropriate action to end this form of exploitation of unfortunate people who are tortured in soul and conscience by their liability to pay their way.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) because tomorrow I have a Private Member's Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule procedure. The purpose of the Bill is to abolish the system of warrant sales and to introduce an alternative system of debt collection.
I am glad that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is here tonight to reply to the debate. I hope that he will respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend and also to the points that I shall put to him.
If there are only 300 warrant sales taking place annually in Scotland, that is 300 too many. Many more such sales are advertised, and many more poindings or official evaluations and earmarkings of articles take place than warrant sales. It is a terrible threat to many people, their families, their relatives and others who just happen to be in the place of domicile at the time when the sheriff's officers arrive and use their threatening tactics.
I believe that the Solicitor-General is—or, at least, was—a member of the Faculty of Advocates. Early this year the faculty made some reformist proposals. Edo not accept that they were satisfactory, but at least the faculty came out in favour of the reform of the present legislation


concerning warrant sales. I hope, therefore, that the Solicitor-General will listen to the views of the faculty. Even the Tory Party reform group has made proposals on similar lines. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will say whether he will be supporting my Private Member's Bill.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) for raising this matter on the Adjournment because it gives rise to public concern frequently as a result of public misunderstanding. I hope that I may put in proportion the concept of warrant sales.
In our society almost everybody uses credit. People use credit for electricity and gas and for many things that they obtain from retail organisations. They use credit perhaps from banks, perhaps from credit card companies, or from hire purchase. They ask a tradesman to come quickly to mend a pipe or stop a leak. They use credit for their motor car. So credit and debt are a universal manifestation of how people carry on their business.
One in four of all retailers' accounts requires pursuit, as does one in six of all lending organisation accounts. There is no civilised country that has abandoned the concept of compulsory sale as the eventual stop for the adjustment of credit and debt. Let us be clear about this. The creditor may be just as lowly and poor a person as the debtor; indeed, he may be poorer. The small plumber may be in a much more difficult situation in having to stay in credit that he cannot recover for a year than a debtor who owes him money. So let us understand that there is no balance between the creditor and the debtor—the creditor being presumed to be rich and wrong and the debtor to be poor and right.
Let me put the matter in proportion. In 1979 there were in Scotland 226 warrant sales, of which two-thirds were in domestic situations and one-third against businesses or offices which did not pay their debts. That means that there were approximately 150 warrant sales, in which in 90 cases the goods were adjudged. That is to say, they were not sold off but were adjudged to the creditor. In many cases the poinding creditor does not even bother to collect or remove the goods. We start with more than 100,000 decrees, so we are down from 100,000 decrees of debt to 226, which reduce to 150. That filter effect is important. As the hon. Member said, it goes through the poinding, the instruction of sale and the advertisement of sale, all the way down from over 100,000 to 226, because between 90 and 99 per cent. of all debts are eventually adjudicated by informal debt procedures. That results in a very small proportion of warrant sales.
It takes up to a year for the procedure to arrive at a warrant sale. Were the situation to be, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said, that a person with a carpet worth £3,000 had it sold for £300, within the year he could easily have raised funds to settle that debt on the basis of selling some article that he owned. For every 350 decrees there is at most one warrant sale.
Who asks for warrant sales? Local authorities ask for them; public utilities ask for them; professional services ask for them; personal services ask for them. Central Government ask for them.

Mr. Canavan: Your Government.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Central Government. It is important to understand that the number of warrant sales that any one retail outlet will ask for in a year will be very rare. It is a very rare procedure for any organisation to undertake, but it is undertaken in the ultimate by a very large number of undertakings, both public and private.

Mr. Canavan: Tell us about the advertisements.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Of course there are advertisements. As I have said, the filter effect from the decrees down to the warrant sales results in between 90 per cent. and 99 per cent. of debts being recovered——

Mr. Canavan: It is intimidation.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: —or adjusted as a result of this procedure.
The hon. Gentleman may speak of intimidation, but a person is owed money and a person owes money, and the procedures result in over 90 per cent. and up to 99 per cent. being satisfied as a result of those procedures.

Mr. Canavan: And some people commit suicide.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I hope that the Solicitor-General will not resent it if I say that he sounds a little complacent. His figures are no doubt accurate, but there is a great deal of anxiety engendered, and a great deal of cost is incurred to the individual by the filter process to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers.
On 13 May the hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was impossible to separate out from the general review of the law of diligence the question of warrant sales. Will he reconsider that point? Only last week the Faculty of Advocates made a specific recommendation for the reform of procedures to remove some of these anxieties. The Law Commission produced three or four weighty reports making specific recommendations for the reform of the procedure. Even if the Solicitor-General does not agree with abolition, will he not accept that there is a genuine case for reform now, instead of waiting for the far-off general review of the law of diligence?
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not consider that there is any case for abolition. No civilised country has ever abolished the ultimate concept of the compulsory sale of goods, and Scotland has no reason to be the first. It would give the ultimate right to be a debtor who had no necessity eventually to pay his debt.
The Law Commission has published five consultative memoranda upon which anyone may comment, so that people may make recommendations. The Law Commission has not at any stage made a report or recommendations of its own.
I do not suggest that the concept, because it is usefully used by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan)—and wrongly used or abused—is evil. I do not consider that that is a reason for tearing away a small part of the law of diligence and taking the Law Commission's memorandum as a diktat, as opposed to a consultative document.
There are enormous protections. When there was undervaluation in the case of Scottish Gas Board v Johnson in 1974, the sheriff did not allow the sale to proceed. In


SSEB v Carlisle, where it was held that the proceeds would probably not cover the expenses of the sale, it was not allowed to proceed.
A sheriff's officer has a difficult and unpleasant task in carrying out the will of a creditor who may have been grossly wronged. Whatever else the debtor may be—perhaps he cannot pay, or has fallen on hard circumstances—he has obtained services, goods or credit from someone else who is having to bear that burden.
The sifting process will take more than a year and only a tiny minority of cases end in warrant sales. Frequently a judgment results in the debtor being left with his goods. I emphatically dismiss the claim that there is universal hardship. Warrant sales are the tiny pinhead of a vast number of adjudications.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. and learned Gentleman is being far too dismissive of the troubles and pains of the procedure. It is not good enough to quote judgments from sheriff courts. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that many people at the wrong end of undervaluation are unlikely to have the means to go to the sheriff court or the experience to deal with the processes that are required.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman holds unsympathetically to the line that nothing can be done until the final recommendations of the Law Commission on diligence are available, will he give us some idea when they are expected, and what guidance Ministers are giving the commission about the urgency of producing that report?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Member is exaggerating the situation. His references to undervaluation are not realistic. It has been suggested that one should go to the auction room. I could quote figures from auction rooms to answer the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie.

Mr. Canavan: Quote them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If one goes into a shop and buys any article and then takes it to an auction room, one will get a fraction of its price.

Mr. Canavan: Quote the figures.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: May I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire not to interrupt from a sedentary position.

Mr. Canavan: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way and quote the figures that he says he can quote about——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not interrupt from a seated position.

Mr. Canavan: I got up from my seat.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: But the Solicitor-General for Scotland has not given way.

Mr. Canavan: The hon. and learned Gentleman is too incapable to do so.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is, of course, a matter of great hardship and despair if a person eventually suffers a warrant sale. It is easy to become emotional about such matters, but they must be put into perspective. Of 100,000 decrees of debt, 99·9 per cent. are settled through the prescribed process and one must remember that for every debt there is a creditor. Any complaint of undervaluation or harassment—and none has been substantiated by those who have inquired into them—will always be investigated by the sheriff.
The ultimate equity that all countries take is the compulsory sale of goods, and I do not believe that, there is in Scotland any inequity that could be avoided in any other country. If improvements can be made, let them be proposed in the recommendations of the Law Commission. In the meantime, let us silence the emotional pretence that warrant sales are a widespread gross hardship.

Mr. Canavan: The Solicitor-General for Scotland's reply was a disgrace.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock.